Opinion
No. 11-73504 Agency No. A096-496-937
2013-09-27
XI YANG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Xi Yang, 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 ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's adverse credibility findings, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel reversal of the agency's adverse credibility determination based on Yang's inability to remember when he traveled to Singapore, or whether he traveled outside of China on other occasions. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) ("So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [petitioner's] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the [adverse] credibility finding."). Yang's explanations, including memory failure, do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Yang's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Aschcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Yang's CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements found not credible, and he points to no other evidence in the record showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 1156-57. We do not address Yang's contentions regarding the IJ's CAT analysis. See Corpuz v. Holder, 697 F.3d 807, 810 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Where as here, the BIA has conducted a de novo review of the IJ's decision, we review only the decision of the BIA.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.