Luan, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70064 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 28 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JINGHONG LUAN, No. 08-70064 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-440-485 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. Jinghong Luan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals 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 ). We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence based on discrepancies between petitioner s testimony and declaration). In the absence of credible testimony, Luan failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156. Luan s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Luan does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-70064

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.