Zhaodong Liu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHAODONG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72456
Agency No. A099-712-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 29, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Zhaodong Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
FILED
OCT 04 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 --

review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility finding and other
factual findings underlying the determination that an applicant is ineligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d
1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010); Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 2006).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
The agency’s adverse credibility decision was reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence given the totality of the circumstances, including the non-
trivial inconsistency between Liu’s written statement and his testimony, his
demeanor during the merits hearing, and his failure to provide corroborating
evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42, 1047-48 (9th Cir.
2010).
We reject Liu’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to adequately
discuss credibility, country reports, and a well-founded fear of persecution. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
In the absence of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011);
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003). Liu’s CAT claim also fails because the country reports alone do
not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Liu will be tortured if
11-72456 2

-- 2 of 3 --

returned to China. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.
2006).
The motion to strike the baptismal certificate is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72456 3

-- 3 of 3 --