Jing Bai v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JING BAI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71272
Agency No. A089-689-455
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jing Bai, 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUN 20 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).

-- 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies regarding how Bai learned that family planning officials
wanted him to be sterilized and how his wife’s pregnancies were discovered. See
id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)
(BIA not compelled to accept petitioner’s explanations for inconsistencies). In the
absence of credible testimony, Bai’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Bai’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence compelling the
conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China.
See id. at 1156-57.
In light of our conclusions, we do not address Bai’s contentions regarding
the merits of these claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-71272 2

-- 2 of 2 --