Weiru Chen v. Holder , 402 F. App'x 251 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIRU CHEN, No. 07-73280
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-042-185
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Weiru 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 (“IJ”) 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 the
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). We review de novo questions of law and due
process claims. Ram v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Chen’s testimony and the testimony of her
witness, Pastor Lin, about whether they met in China or the United States and how
long they have known each other, and the IJ could reasonably reject Chen’s
explanation. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). In the
absence of credible testimony, Chen failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and she points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
2 07-73280
Finally, Chen’s contention that the IJ was not an impartial adjudicator is
unsupported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to establish a due process violation). Chen’s due process
contention regarding an incompetent translator is also unsupported by the record.
See id.PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-73280