Yinglin Xu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YINGLIN XU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73224
Agency No. A097-358-524
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yinglin Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-73224
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Xu’s submission of a fraudulent employment termination letter, see id. at
1272, the discrepancies between Xu’s testimony and nonimmigrant visa
application regarding his educational and employment background, see Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and Xu’s inconsistent testimony
regarding his surveillance by authorities, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th
Cir. 2004). The agency reasonably rejected Xu’s explanations. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible
testimony, Xu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348
F.3d at 1156.
Because Xu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --