Cuirong Yu v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CUIRONG YU,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71368
Agency No. A089-724-080
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Cuirong Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
OCT 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71368
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 agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Yu’s testimony and documentary evidence. See
id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Yu’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Yu’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that
it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China. See
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, we reject Yu’s contention that the IJ was biased, because she has not
demonstrated any bias. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir.
2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --