Case Name: SHUXIN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 569 F. App'x 537
Docket Number: No. 10-73134
Parties: SHUXIN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 537–538

Head Matter:
SHUXIN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2014.
Filed April 16, 2014.
Dehai Zhang, Law Offices of Dehai Zhang, Flushing, NY, for Petitioner.
Laura M.L. Maroldy, 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: FARRIS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shuxin Li petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the denial by an immigration judge of Li's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
1. The denial of Li's asylum application was supported by substantial evidence, including a forensic document examiner's testimony that a purported Chinese arrest notice submitted by Li was prepared on the same printer as documents seized during a raid of a Los Angeles "document mill." Substantial evidence also supported the IJ's determination that Li's testimony that his wife mailed the arrest notice to him from China was not credible.
2. Because Li did not establish eligibility for asylum, his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection were also appropriately denied. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 971 (9th Cir.1998).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.