NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONG YUN RUAN,

Petitioner,

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71184

Agency No. A088

- 483

- 216

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 9, 2018 ** Portland, Oregon

Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and M Á RQUEZ, *** District Judge.

Rong Yun Ruan , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Rosemary Má rquez, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 11 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

immigration j udge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’ s cr edibility determinati ons , applying the standards created by

the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010).

T he agency’s determination that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous

application for asylum is reviewed de novo fo r compliance with the procedural

framework set forth by the BIA. Yan Liu v. Holder , 640 F.3d 918, 925 (9th Cir.

2011). As the parties are familiar with the facts , we do not recount them here. We

deny the petition for review

. Substantial evidence support s the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Ruan’s inconsistent statements regarding her activities during the time

period she was allegedly arrested and detained, and her nervous demeanor when

asked about the inconsistency. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 104 8 (holding that an

adverse credibility finding was r easona ble under the totality of the circumstances) ;

see also Li ng Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that

the “ need for deference is particularly strong in the c ontext of demeanor

assessments ” ). Ruan’s explanation for the inconsistency do es not compel a

contrar y result. See Zamanov v. Holder , 64 9 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the

absence of credible testimony, Ruan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).3

Ruan’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same evidence the

agency found not credible, and Ruan points to no other evidence in the record that

compels the conclusion that it is m ore likely than not s he would be tortured by
, or
with the consent or acquiescence of
, a public official in China. See id . at 1156

- 57.
Finally, the agency did not err in finding that Ruan filed a frivolous asylum

application. It complied with the procedural requirements set forth by the BIA.

See Yan Liu , 640 F.3d at 927

- 28. Furthermore, a preponderance of the evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Ruan deliberately fabricated her alleged arrest
and detention for participati ng in an underground church , which was a material

element of her asylum application

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (“[A]n asylum
application is frivolous if any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.”) ;

Yan Liu , 640 F.3d at 927 (stating that “ frivo lousness must be proven by a

preponderance of the evidence ”). Further, Ruan was given “ample opportunity . . .
to address and account for any deliberate, material fabrications[.]” Ahir v.

Mukasey , 527 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

PET ITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.