CUIRONG YU V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71368 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CUIRONG YU, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71368 Agency No. A089-724-080 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 16-71368
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
