FEN CHEN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71112 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEN XING CHEN, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71112 Agency No. A087-610-379 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Fen Xing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA found Chen not credible based on an inconsistency between his testimony and application as to his continued practice of Falun Gong in China after his arrest, the omission from his application that police had come to his home six times after he left China, and the IJ’s negative demeanor finding. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-71112

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.