Luzhong Xu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUZHONG XU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73077
Agency No. A099-438-934
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Luzhong Xu, 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
FILED
MAR 02 2016
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 2 --

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 we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on several omissions from Xu’s affidavit regarding the harm he suffered, and
inconsistencies between Xu’s testimony and documentary evidence regarding the
injuries he sustained. See id. at 1048; Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74
(9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence when
added details told a different, more compelling story of persecution). Xu’s
explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. In the absence of credible testimony, Xu’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Xu’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 he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-73077 2

-- 2 of 2 --