Lihui Yin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LIHUI YIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74168
Agency No. A099-361-027
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lihui Yin, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial
of her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under Article 3 of
the Convention Against Torture. Our review of a BIA’s determination is
FILED
MAY 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
deferential. We can reverse only if the petitioner’s evidence was such that a
reasonable factfinder must have concluded otherwise. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, nor do
we. In addition to the inconsistencies noted by the BIA, the agency based its
finding of incredibility on the petitioner’s demeanor, candor, and responsiveness. 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Credibility determinations that are based on an
applicant’s demeanor are given “special deference.” Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d
1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999). We find the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274
(9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Yin’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.
2003).
The BIA also found that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it is more likely
than not that she would be tortured if removed to China, and hence denied her
application under the Convention Against Torture. Where, as here, the petitioner’s
testimony is found not credible, we can only reverse the BIA’s decision denying
protection under the Convention Against Torture if we find that the country reports
alone compel the conclusion that Yin is more likely than not to be tortured.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 2010). Yin has failed to
provide reports that would compel such a conclusion. Therefore, the BIA’s denial
of protection under the Convention Against Torture is supported by substantial
evidence.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --