Fulan Yang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FULAN YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70840
Agency No. A098-466-735
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Fulan Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
DEC 02 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). Thus, we reject Yang’s
request for oral argument.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 (9th Cir. 2010), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on both the discrepancy between Yang’s testimony and visa application
related to her alleged detention, and on the discrepancy between her testimony and
other evidence in the record regarding her alleged employment termination. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47. The agency reasonably rejected Yang’s
explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275
(9th Cir. 2007). Further, Yang does not challenge the IJ’s negative demeanor
finding. In the absence of credible testimony, Yang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Yang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found to be not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence
that shows it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70840 2

-- 2 of 2 --