Weihong Liu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIHONG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70080
Agency No. A200-253-240
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Weihong Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
FILED
FEB 29 2016
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 2 --

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on omissions from Liu’s and his wife’s declarations of an alleged IUD
insertion, circumstances preceding an alleged forced abortion, the alleged birth of a
second child, and subsequent events. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the
circumstances standard); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th
Cir. 2011) (upholding adverse credibility determination based in part on omissions
which “went to the core of [the petitioner’s] fear of political persecution”). The
agency reasonably found Liu’s explanations further undermined his credibility.
See Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible
testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-70080 2

-- 2 of 2 --