Dezhong Tian 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DEZHONG TIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70144
Agency No. A099-047-161
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Dezhong Tian, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70144 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA reasonably concluded Tian’s testimony was non-responsive to
several questions, appeared to be memorized, and lacked detail regarding his
religious practice in the United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under totality of circumstances). Therefore, the record does not compel
the conclusion Tian was credible. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 745 (9th
Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Tian’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Tian’s CAT claim is based on the same statements the agency found not
credible, and there is no other evidence in the record that would compel a finding it
is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-
57. Accordingly, Tian’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --