Case Name: QIYAN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-12
Citations: 587 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 12-72862
Parties: QIYAN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
QIYAN LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72862.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2014.
Filed Dec. 12, 2014.
Dennis James Eoffe, Law Office of Dennis Eoffe, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Qiyan Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her 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 BIA's adverse credibility determination based on Li's testimony that her alleged arrest in China occurred on the same day as her alleged baptism in the United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of circumstances). In the absence of credible testimony, Li'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.