Case Name: PINBIN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 633 F. App'x 450
Docket Number: No. 13-73959
Parties: PINBIN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 450–450

Head Matter:
PINBIN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73959.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 21, 2016.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Oil, Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, 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
Pinbin Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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, 1039-1040 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies the IJ identified between Zhao's testimony and declaration about his encounter with family planning officials. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act's totality of the circumstances standard). In reaching this conclusion we do not rely on any alleged discrepancy as to the diamond ring. In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.