Ming Yi v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MING YI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73763
Agency No. A099-448-431
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ming Yi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-73763
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 an inconsistency regarding his ability to obtain medical records, and
evidence relating to when he was terminated from his job, as well as an omission
about the protest in December 2002. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances). Yi’s explanations
do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Yi’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --