Qiang Sun v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANG SUN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72106
Agency No. A087-843-661
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Qiang Sun, 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72106
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 as to where Sun sought medical treatment after allegedly
being beaten, and when he first decided to leave China. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Sun’s
explanation as to why he testified inconsistently about when he first left China
does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Sun’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156
(9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Sun’s CAT claim
because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Sun
does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that
it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official in China. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --