Zhenming Liu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHENMING LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71414
Agency No. A089-882-127
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, FARRIS, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Zhenming Liu, a native and citizen of People’s Republic 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71414
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 Liu’s testimony, asylum application, and record
evidence as to when Liu began working at the dye factory and how long he
received unemployment benefits after he was laid off. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”). Liu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony in this case, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Liu’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same testimony that the
agency found not credible, and Liu points to no other evidence showing that it is
more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --