Fengmin Cao v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FENGMIN CAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73996
Agency No. A087-431-483
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Fengmin Cao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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
FILED
JUN 26 2014
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 BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on omissions in Cao’s asylum application and written statement and
inconsistencies in his testimony regarding a police beating, a requirement to report
to the police once a month, going into hiding, and applying for a marriage permit.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (omitted incidents of
arrest and mistreatment supported adverse credibility finding); Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1048 (totality of the circumstances supported adverse credibility determination).
In the absence of credible testimony, Cao’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Cao’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not
credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more
likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73996 2

-- 2 of 2 --