Wuhong Cao v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WUHONG CAO; GUISANG YANG; et No. 07-71502
al.,
Agency Nos. A097-365-516
Petitioners, A097-365-517
A097-365-518
v. A097-365-519
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Wuhong Cao, his wife Guisang Yang, and their two children, natives and
citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
*
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).
PR/Research
denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1043 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on the discrepancy regarding the family members’ departure for Peru following
Yang’s alleged forced abortion, and based on the discrepancy regarding the
number of times Yang was arrested. See id. (inconsistencies regarding “events
leading up to [petitioner’s] departure and the number of times he was arrested”
went to the heart of petitioner’s claim and supported adverse credibility
determination). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not
credible, and they point to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
they will be tortured if returned to China, their CAT claim fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PR/Research 2 07-71502
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that the IJ
violated due process by not allowing one petitioner to be present while the other
testified, because they failed to raise this contention before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
PR/Research 3 07-71502