Case Name: YANTING LIU; Yaner Liu, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-21
Citations: 440 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 08-71725
Parties: YANTING LIU; Yaner Liu, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
YANTING LIU; Yaner Liu, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71725.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 21, 2011.
Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioners.
Remi Adalemo, Trial, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Donald Anthony Couvillon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Yanting Liu and Yaner Liu, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistencies in Yanting's testimony regarding her husband's visits and the timing of her alleged pregnancy. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioners' explanation that Yanting was confused does not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.