Lu, et al v. Holder, No. 06-74990 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 06-74990 LI LU, Agency No. A097-361-215 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 7, 2010** Pasadena, California Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior District Judge.*** Li Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration * 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). *** The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. judge s ( IJ ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s adverse credibility finding and will uphold the determination unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). We independently evaluate each ground cited by the IJ for his adverse credibility findings. So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ s adverse credibility finding. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). We deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s adverse credibility determination with respect to Lu s meeting with Xu Ping and her subsequent involvement with Xu Ping s Christian home church. Lu s testimony was marred by inconsistencies with her written application for asylum and by Lu s implausible statement that Xu Ping perceived (1) something wrong inside her heart, and (2) that Lu was in a foul mood, even though she told Xu Ping she was fine. Because this episode was intended to explain her introduction to the church, Lu s answers and unsatisfactory 2 explanations go to the heart of her claim that she was a victim of persecution on account of her religion. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.