Case Name: HONGLIANG LIANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 631 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 12-70418
Parties: HONGLIANG LIANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 491–491

Head Matter:
HONGLIANG LIANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70418.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 27, 2016.
Hongliang Liang, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hongliang Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies regarding Liang's injuries, his manager's attempt to bribe him, and the bribe his manager paid police. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination supported under "the totality of circumstances"). Liang's explanations do not compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Liang's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Liang's CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and Liang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.