Liangyu Fang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LIANGYU FANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73341
Agency No. A099-044-816
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Liangyu Fang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a 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 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73341 2
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 (9th Cir.
2010), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Fang’s testimony and his work-dismissal
notice regarding his last day of employment. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738,
741-43 (9th Cir. 2007); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Fang’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Fang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Fang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found
not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence demonstrating it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73341 3
We reject Fang’s due process contentions regarding the interpretation and
transcription of his hearing because the proceedings were not so fundamentally
unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and he failed to
demonstrate prejudice. See Ibarra-Flores, 439 F.3d at 620-21. Finally, contrary to
Fang’s contention, the record does not indicate the agency failed to consider the
evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --