Case Name: Xin-Le LIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 109 F. App'x 948
Docket Number: No. 03-72063; Agency No. A77-775-241
Parties: Xin-Le LIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 948–949

Head Matter:
Xin-Le LIN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72063.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
David Z. Su, El Monte, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, David M. McConnell, John J. Andre, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Xin-Le Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding because petitioner's testimony and evidence contained inconsistencies and implausibilities going to the heart of his asylum claim, including his reasons for leaving China 10 years after his wife was sterilized. See id. at 1043. Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the denial of relief under CAT. See id. at 1157.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.