Hyang Lee v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HYANG LAN LEE, No. 08-70912
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-800-950
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Hyang Lan Lee, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence adverse credibility determinations, Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001
(9th Cir. 2010), and deny the petition for review.
Lee’s claim for relief in her asylum application and at her merits hearing
differed significantly from the claim for relief she presented to the asylum officer
during her credible fear interview. We reject Lee’s contention that the BIA
improperly relied on the credible fear interview to find her not credible. See Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004); cf. Singh v. INS, 292 F.3d 1017, 1022
(9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that an airport statement lacked sufficient indicia of
reliability and accuracy on its own to support an adverse credibility determination
because there was evidence of translation problems and no evidence of how the
interview was conducted). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination based on this inconsistent account of her claim, see
Singh-Kaur v. Ashcroft, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[t]he court must
uphold the BIA’s findings unless the evidence presented would compel a
reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result”); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d
1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (inconsistencies deprived claim of requisite “ring of
truth”), and the agency reasonably rejected Lee’s explanation for the inconsistency,
see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
2 08-70912
In the absence of credible testimony, Lee’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70912