Jinghui Lu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGHUI LU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72427
Agency No. A087-601-052
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 11, 2019**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jinghui Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
* 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
SEP 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-72427
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the
REAL ID Act. Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Lu’s submission of a falsified document, and the inconsistency between
Lu’s testimony and asylum application as to her employment in China. See id. at
966-67 (fraudulent document properly considered and adverse credibility
determination supported under the totality of the circumstances). Lu’s
explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Lu’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Lu’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it
is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --