Peixun Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEIXUN LIU, No. 12-73266
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-449-596
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Peixun Liu, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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), and review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancies in the record regarding Liu’s wife’s IUD, and when
Liu’s second child was born. See Shrestha 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). We reject
Liu’s contention that the agency failed to perform a reasoned analysis of the
evidence. Liu’s contentions that the inconsistencies were minor and did not go to
the heart of his claim are unavailing. See id. at 1046 (under the REAL ID Act,
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of petitioner’s claim). Further,
Liu’s explanations for the discrepancies do not compel the contrary result. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible
testimony, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-73266
Liu does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he did not appeal the denial of
his CAT claim.
We reject Liu’s contention that was denied a full and fair hearing or was
prevented from reasonably presenting his case. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1014-15;
Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We lack
jurisdiction to consider any alleged due process violations that Liu did not raise to
the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73266