Kelin Che v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KELIN CHE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70454
Agency No. A099-462-646
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Kelin Che, 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
NOV 25 2015
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 --

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 finding based
on the omission from Che’s written statement of the alleged corruption and Che’s
investigation into it, as well as Che’s non-responsiveness regarding the resolution
he sought from officials. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard); see
also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility
finding supported where incidents omitted from application materially altered
claim). In the absence of credible testimony, Che’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Che’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found
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. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we deny as moot Che’s opposed motion to hold proceedings in
abeyance and the government’s motion to consolidate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70454

-- 2 of 2 --