Case Name: LIANGZHONG SHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-13
Citations: 599 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 13-71129
Parties: LIANGZHONG SHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 749–749

Head Matter:
LIANGZHONG SHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-71129.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2015.
Filed April 13, 2015.
Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices Of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office Of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John M. Mcadams, Jr., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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
Liangzhong Shao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 under the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 1048. The agency was not compelled to accept Shao's explanation that his memory was poor. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011). Further, we reject as contrary to the record Shao's contention that the BIA did not consider this explanation in assessing the IJ's adverse credibility finding. In the absence of credible testimony, Shao's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.