Rong He v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONG HE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73038
Agency No. A099-460-081
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BELL, District Judge. ***
Rong He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
DEC 11 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).
*** The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The agency found He not credible based on discrepancies in her testimony
and supporting documents and because it found her travels implausible given her
account of her release from detention. The record does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of
the circumstances); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir. 2003)
(inconsistencies between testimonial and documentary evidence); Don v. Gonzales,
476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007) (implausibility of fear of authorities). Further,
the agency was not compelled to accept He’s explanations. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Finally, contrary to He’s contention,
the IJ considered her explanations. Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, we deny the petition as to He’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --