Qun Yin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUN YIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72437
Agency No. A099-901-647
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Qun Yin, 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, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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).
FILED
JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72437
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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
as to Yin’s alleged past harm in China based on inconsistencies between Yin’s
testimony and declaration regarding his introduction to Christianity and
employment history, and based on Yin’s implausible responses when confronted
with the inconsistencies. See Id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); see also Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence supported adverse credibility
finding where petitioner had ample opportunity to explain contradictions but failed
to offer reasonable and plausible explanations). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Yin failed to establish a likelihood of
future persecution simply on the basis of being a Christian in China. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Thus, Yin’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72437
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Yin’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the
record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Yin
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to China. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --