Xi Liu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
XI LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70759
Agency No. A099-697-131
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Xi Liu, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAY 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-70759
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancies between Liu’s testimony and the documentary evidence
he submitted, as well as numerous inconsistencies within his documentary
evidence. See id. at 1047-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). In the absence
of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Liu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found
not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-
57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --