Xiao Yan Lin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
XIAO YAN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70094
Agency No. A099-667-853
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Xiao Yan Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-70094 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on
discrepancies within Lin’s testimony regarding her Chinese passport, which she
failed to explain adequately. See id. at 1047-48 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s demeanor-based adverse
credibility determination, where the IJ specifically noted instances in which Lin
refused to answer questions. See id. at 1044-45. In the absence of credible
testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding or removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not
credible, and she points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not that
she would be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-
57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --