Yu Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 466 F. App'x 680 ( 2012 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2012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
YU YING CHEN, No. 09-70560
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-390-663
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.
Yu Ying 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 relief 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 factual
findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Chen’s failure to mention that she was forcibly sterilized during either of
her interviews at the airport. See Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2011);
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (explanation was plausible,
but record did not compel the finding that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe it was
erroneous). The agency’s adverse credibility determination is also supported by
the discrepancies between Chen’s statements at the airport and her testimony
regarding the circumstances of her arrest and release from custody, as well as the
expert testimony that Chen’s fine receipt was likely fraudulent. See Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility determination
is supported by discrepancy between testimony and declaration); Desta v. Ashcroft,
365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). 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 evidence the agency found
not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
2 09-70560
she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70560