From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Qingwei Jin v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 2, 2016
No. 15-70195 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-70195

11-02-2016

QINGWEI JIN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A087-599-020 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Qingwei Jin, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 Jin's inconsistent testimony regarding his arrest in 2008, and inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence concerning his prior attempts to obtain a visa and his employment information. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Jin's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Jin's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Jin's CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Jin does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Qingwei Jin v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 2, 2016
No. 15-70195 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2016)
Case details for

Qingwei Jin v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:QINGWEI JIN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 2, 2016

Citations

No. 15-70195 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2016)