                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 26 2016
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


 MING YI,                                           No. 13-73763

               Petitioner,                          Agency No. A099-448-431

    v.
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
 LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                        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).
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                                   13-73763
