Shaobo Ren v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAOBO REN, No. 11-72873
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-901-049
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Shaobo Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Ren’s written statement of the arrest and physical harm
he allegedly suffered. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir.
2011) (adverse credibility finding supported where incidents petitioner omitted
from asylum application materially altered claim); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47(“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s
claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great
weight.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Ren’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Ren’s claim for relief under the
Convention Against Torture because he did not appeal the IJ’s denial of relief to
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcrof, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court
lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-72873