Xi He v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 24 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    XI AN HE,                                        No. 10-73102
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A099-717-997
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 17, 2012 **
    Before:        LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Xi An He, 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 asylum and 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).
    agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
    credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
    based on both the omission of He’s mother’s arrest and detention from his asylum
    application, and on his inconsistent testimony regarding the length of her detention.
    See 
    id. at 1045-48
     (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real
    ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). The record does not compel
    acceptance of He’s explanations. See Zamanov v. Holder, 
    649 F.3d 969
    , 974 (9th
    Cir. 2011) (acceptance of plausible explanation not compelled “in light of the
    importance of the omitted incident to [petitioner’s] asylum claim”). In the absence
    of credible testimony, He’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                                      10-73102
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-73102

Filed Date: 1/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021