Jianbo Shao v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANBO SHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72815
Agency No. A205-330-702
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jianbo Shao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’s 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72815
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, 1039-40 (9th Cir.
2010), and review de novo due process claims, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Shao’s omission from his asylum application that family planning
officials threatened to sterilize him. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; Kin v.
Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination
supported by omission of crucial facts from asylum application). Shao’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, Shao’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Shao’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72815
id. at 1156-57. We reject his contentions that the agency did not analyze his claim
properly. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --