Hulin Cui v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HULIN CUI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70399
Agency No. A097-877-622
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Hulin Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70399 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because the IJ made a specific and cogent demeanor finding, see Arulampalam v.
Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003), and because the inconsistencies with
respect to Cui’s detention and employment history were material and go to the
heart of his claims, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007). In
the absence of credible testimony, Cui’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Cui’s CAT claim is based on the same statements found to be 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 that he would be tortured if returned to
China, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --