Baozhong Wu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAOZHONG WU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72455
Agency No. A099-723-042
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Baozhong Wu, 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
FILED
FEB 24 2014
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). We deny Wu’s request for
oral argument.

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies both within Wu’s testimony and between his testimony
and his application regarding his ability to work after his release from detention
and the alleged imposition of a reporting requirement. See id. at 1043-44. Wu’s
explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Wu’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Further, because Wu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to
be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72455 2

-- 2 of 2 --