Hongliang Liang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGLIANG LIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70418
Agency No. A099-043-103
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Hongliang Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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
FILED
JAN 27 2016
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 --

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 the discrepancies regarding Liang’s injuries, his manager’s attempt to
bribe him, and the bribe his manager paid police. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination supported under “the totality of circumstances”). Liang’s
explanations do not compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Liang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Liang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and Liang does not point to any other evidence in the record
that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70418 2

-- 2 of 2 --