Case Name: XU YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-24
Citations: 613 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 08-73943
Parties: XU YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 661–661

Head Matter:
XU YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73943.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submission Deferred Dec. 9, 2014.
Submitted June 1, 2015.
Filed Aug. 24, 2015.
Sabey Marina Abraham, Esquire, Law Offices of Vaughan De Kirby, A.P.C., An-ders Laird Johnson, Trial, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office Of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, 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
Petitioner Xu Yao (Yao) challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination: Yao's conclusory and speculative statements concerning his knowledge of alleged theft and embezzlement by the factory's management; Yao's inadequate explanation regarding his representation of workers at a factory that he had not been associated with for several years; Yao's inconsistent testimony that governmental investigations had "no outcomes" while acknowledging that some of the factory's directors and managers confessed to theft and embezzlement; and Yao's testimony that he remained in the United States because of its quality of life, although asserting in his asylum application that he did not return to China due to his fear of being arrested. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir.2014) (articulating that, under the REAL ID Act, the IJ may premise an adverse credibility determination on "any inaccuracies or falsehoods . or any other relevant factor") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on its adverse credibility determination, the IJ properly denied Yao's asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir.2014).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's denial of Yao's claim under the Convention Against Torture, because Yao failed to present any evidence beyond his discredited testimony to establish that it was "more likely than not that he . would be tortured if removed." Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.