Chen, et al v. Holder, No. 07-74380 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANHUA CHEN, No. 07-74380 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-852-503 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Yanhua Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a 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 jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s adverse credibility finding because Chen s omission of her arrest and detention on her visa application goes to the heart of her claim of persecution, see Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001), and Chen s documentary evidence does not overcome this inconsistency, see Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005) (documentary evidence did not compel a contrary conclusion). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156. Because Chen s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not credible, and she points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not she will be tortured in China, her CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 07-74380

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.