Gongrun Lan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GONGRUN LAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71955
Agency No. A099-066-867
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Gongrun Lan, 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
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71955 2
jurisdiction under 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not compel reversal
of the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies between
Lan’s testimony and documentary evidence regarding the friend who introduced
him to Christianity and the vague nature of his testimony regarding the details of
his wife’s forced abortion. See id. at 1046-47. In the absence of credible
testimony, Lan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, Lan’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements
the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the
finding that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See
id. at 1156-57.
Finally, Lan’s contention regarding the BIA’s streamlined decision is
foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003)
(BIA’s summary affirmance procedure does not violate due process).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --