Case Name: Tao LI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-22
Citations: 671 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 14-73575
Parties: Tao LI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 993–994

Head Matter:
Tao LI, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73575
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 22, 2016
Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
Deitz P. Lefort, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Tao Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on omissions in Li's asylum application of the beatings he received from fellow inmates and a police visit to his home in China in April 2013. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (material alterations in the applicant's account may provide substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Li's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Li's CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if he returns to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1049.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.