Wei Rong v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 856 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 5 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEI HUA RONG, No. 12-71642
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-492-959
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Wei Hua Rong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the IJ’s negative assessment of Rong’s demeanor. See Singh-Kaur v. INS,
183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special deference” given to credibility
determinations based on demeanor). Substantial evidence also supports the
adverse credibility determination based on Rong’s inconsistent testimony
regarding the name of the church he attends in the United States, and the agency’s
rejection of his unpersuasive explanation for the inconsistency. See Cortez-Pineda
v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Rong’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Rong’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not
credible and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not
he will face torture if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-
57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2