Teon Kyung-Ai, a.k.a. Quan Jingai v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEON KYUNG-AI, a.k.a. Quan Jingai,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70383
Agency No. A098-291-886
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Teon Kyung-Ai, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
DEC 5 2013
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 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, including the agency’s adverse credibility findings. Cortez-
Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on
Kyung-Ai’s difficulties describing or demonstrating the Falun Gong exercises she
asserted she regularly practiced. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-45 (9th
Cir. 2007) (concluding evidence did not compel finding of credibility, where
aspects of account were implausible and lack of detail went to heart of claim).
Further, Kyung-Ai’s explanations for these difficulties do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, Kyung-Ai’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Kyung-Ai’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the BIA found not credible,
and she does not point to any other evidence in the record that would compel the
finding she would likely be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Kyung-Ai’s contention regarding
difficulties in interpretation because she did not raise this issue to the BIA. See
12-70383 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-70383 3

-- 3 of 3 --