Case Name: AI QING LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-23
Citations: 637 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 11-71579
Parties: AI QING LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
AI QING LIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71579.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2016.
Filed Feb. 23, 2016.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng LI, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Deitz P. LeFort, Trial, OIL, DOJ-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: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Ai Qing Lin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The BIA upheld the IJ's finding that Lin was not credible and denied Lin's asy lum and withholding of removal application for that reason. We affirm the BIA's decision because the evidence does not "corn-pelt ] a contrary result." Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir.2013). The BIA correctly noted that "the respondent's testimony is replete with inconsistencies." For example, Lin testified to the asylum officer that he was detained for 16 days after a dispute with family planning officials. But he later testified to the IJ that the 15-day detention occurred when he was much younger and was for religious reasons.
We also affirm the BIA's decision to deem Lin's application for relief under the Convention Against Torture waived. Lin previously withdrew that application.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.