                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                         APR 11 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

HUICONG LIANG,                                   No. 12-72812

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A087-819-343

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted April 7, 2014**

Before:        TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

       Huicong Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Liang’s
request for oral argument.
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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the inconsistency between Liang’s Mexican work visa, which was

renewed in 2006, and his testimony that he fears Chinese officials in Mexico and

has not returned to Mexico since 2003. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although

inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an

inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). The

agency was not compelled to accept Liang’s explanation for this inconsistency.

See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of

credible testimony, Liang’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           2                                    12-72812
