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

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAIQIANG HE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70365
Agency No. A088-785-255
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Naiqiang He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-70365
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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
because He claimed that his father’s death in 2005 motivated him to start a family
in violation of China’s family planning laws, but He’s testimony and declaration
were inconsistent with his household registration and asylum application regarding
whether his father had passed away. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies
no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is
at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Further, the agency was
not compelled to accept He’s explanations for these discrepancies. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony,
He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of He’s CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
returned to China. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --