The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 1, 2010.
Guichun Xuan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ari Nazarov, Oil, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A096-339-711.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Guichun Xuan, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination because Xuan displayed a lack of basic knowledge of her claimed religion. See Singh v. Ash-croft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004) (approving an adverse credibility conclusion based in part on an expectation that one who claims active participation in a group has a deeper understanding of that group's beliefs). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's adverse credibility determination because the IJ's negative assessment of Xuan's demeanor, including her hesitant and evasive manner of testimony, is entitled to special deference. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999). In the absence of credible testimony, Xuan's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ash-croft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Xuan's CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and she points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.