Case Name: BAOLIANG YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-23
Citations: 645 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 13-73252
Parties: BAOLIANG YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
BAOLIANG YAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73252.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 23, 2016.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Baoliang Yao, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection un der 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 Yao's conflicting testimony as to the documentation from the car accident that killed his friend, and as to the location of his church meetings. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the "totality of circumstances"). Yao's explanations for these contradictions do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Yao's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of Yao's CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible and the record does not otherwise compel the .finding that it is more likely than not' Yao would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.