Lu v. Holder ( 2010 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LI LU, No. 06-74990
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-361-215
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior
District Judge.***
Li Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
*
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).
***
The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s adverse credibility finding and will uphold the determination “unless the
evidence compels a contrary result.” Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.
2007). “We independently evaluate each ground cited by the IJ for his adverse
credibility findings. So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by
substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution, we are
bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d
1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks
omitted).
We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination with
respect to Lu’s meeting with Xu Ping and her subsequent involvement with Xu
Ping’s Christian home church. Lu’s testimony was marred by inconsistencies with
her written application for asylum and by Lu’s implausible statement that Xu Ping
perceived (1) something wrong “inside her heart,” and (2) that Lu was in a “foul
mood,” even though she told Xu Ping she was “fine.” Because this episode was
intended to explain her introduction to the church, Lu’s answers and unsatisfactory
2
explanations go to the heart of her claim that she was a victim of persecution on
account of her religion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3