Case Name: SHUIYING LIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 04-74671
Parties: SHUIYING LIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
SHUIYING LIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74671.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
Shenqian Yuan, Law Offices of Tang & Yuan, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Shelley R. Goad, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Emily B. Metzger, USKA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Wichita, KS, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shuiying Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ denied relief on the ground that Liang was not credible. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. Accordingly, Liang failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). Liang's CAT claim also fails because it was based on the same evidence that the IJ found to be not credible. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.