Pingping Chen v. Michael Mukasey ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAR 06 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PINGPING CHEN,                                    No. 08-73159
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A096-049-924
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 21, 2012 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Pingping Chen, 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 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 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).
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for substantial evidence,
    Chebchoub v. INS, 
    257 F.3d 1038
    , 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition
    for review.
    Given the problems the agency identified regarding Chen’s documentary
    evidence and testimony, the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s
    adverse credibility finding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th
    Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding that went to key elements of the
    asylum claim, including identity); Kaur v. Gonzales, 
    418 F.3d 1061
    , 1067 (9th
    Cir. 2005) (upholding adverse credibility finding where testimony lacked the
    requisite “ring of truth”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony,
    Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 
    348 F.3d at 1156
    .
    Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
    credible, and she does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than
    not that she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See 
    id. at 1156-57
    .
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     08-73159