Case Name: RONG RAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-16
Citations: 235 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 06-71957
Parties: RONG RAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
RONG RAO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71957.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 16, 2007.
Rong Rao, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Phoenix, AZ, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esq., Andrew C. Maclachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rong Rao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's decision denying Rao's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Rao not credible based on her submission of multiple documents regarding her alleged arrest, detention and abuse by police that a forensic examiner discredited. Because the genuineness of these documents goes to the heart of her claim, substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See id. Accordingly, Rao failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Rao does not challenge the agency's denial of relief under the CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.