Wen Dai v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 09-60550     Document: 00511115778          Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/19/2010
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    May 19, 2010
    No. 09-60550
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    WEN LONG DAI,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A088 057 007
    Before DeMOSS, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Wen Long Dai, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for
    asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
    Torture (CAT). His application was denied based on adverse credibility findings
    made by the Immigration Judge (IJ), which were upheld by the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (BIA) when it dismissed Dai’s administrative appeal.
    Dai contends that the credibility findings of the IJ and BIA were
    unsupported by the record. He argues that he fully explained the apparent
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 09-60550    Document: 00511115778 Page: 2        Date Filed: 05/19/2010
    No. 09-60550
    discrepancy concerning the signing of the sterilization document he claims to
    have received, which was dated while he was in Europe; that the finding that his
    wife’s abortion was not coerced was not supported by the record; and that the IJ
    and BIA erred by basing a credibility finding as to when he was fired on Dai’s
    failure to file a complete asylum application. Dai makes no arguments as to his
    eligibility for relief based on the facts as he sees them; rather, he states merely
    that the “application for asylum [and] withholding of removal should be granted”
    because the credibility determinations were incorrect.
    We review an immigration court’s rulings of law de novo and its findings
    of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
    Zhu v. Gonzales, 
    493 F.3d 588
    , 594 (5th Cir. 2007). Among the findings of fact
    that this court reviews for substantial evidence is an immigration court’s
    conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or
    relief under the CAT. Zhang v. Gonzales, 
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005, “an IJ may rely on any
    inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long
    as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not
    credible.” Wang v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 531
    , 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in
    original) (citation omitted). We will defer “to an IJ’s credibility determination
    unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable
    fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 
    Id. at 538
    (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Dai’s inconsistent and changing accounts about when he signed the
    sterilization notice and when he received his termination letter were such that
    we cannot say that no reasonable factfinder would have found his testimony
    noncredible. See 
    id. The hospital
    record for Dai’s wife suggested that her
    abortion was performed for medical reasons and not as the result of China’s
    population control policies. We cannot say that no reasonable factfinder would
    have found Dai’s testimony to the contrary noncredible. See 
    id. 2 Case:
    09-60550   Document: 00511115778 Page: 3        Date Filed: 05/19/2010
    No. 09-60550
    All of Dai’s claims were based on his alleged resistance to China’s
    population control policies. Because the credibility determinations of the IJ and
    BIA withstand our review, the decision to deny Dai relief is supported by
    substantial evidence. See 
    Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344
    .
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-60550

Judges: Demoss, Prado, Haynes

Filed Date: 5/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024