Linbao Wang; Qiaoying Sun v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINBAO WANG; QIAOYING SUN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73263
Agency Nos. A089-689-217
A072-404-457
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Linbao Wang and Qiaoying Sun, natives and citizens of China, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 finding based on
Sun’s shifting testimony about whether Wang was at home when family planning
officials arrived at their house, evasiveness in petitioners’ testimony, and
inconsistent testimony about what happened to Sun’s prior medical history booklet.
See id. at 1048 (totality of the circumstances supported adverse credibility
determination); see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999)
(noting the “special deference” accorded to credibility determinations based on
demeanor). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA
found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion it is
more likely than not that petitioners will be tortured if returned to China, the CAT
claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73263 2

-- 2 of 2 --