Mei Chang Ou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MEI CHANG OU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75015
Agency No. A098-385-950
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mei Chang Ou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75015 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created
by the REAL ID Act. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
The agency found Ou not credible for several reasons, including Ou’s
demeanor, as well as inconsistencies between Ou’s testimony at her merits hearing
and asylum interview. In light of these findings, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the
circumstances”). Additionally, we reject Ou’s contention that the inconsistencies
were the result of an unqualified hearing translator because Ou failed to identify
any instances of incorrect translation. See Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2
(9th Cir. 1994). In the absence of credible testimony, Ou’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Ou’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and she points to no other evidence the agency should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --