JIAYOU SUN V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-73519 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIAYOU SUN, No. Petitioner, 14-73519 Agency No. A087-604-898 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 4, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Jiayou Sun, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding or removal, and * 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding, which was based on inconsistencies in Sun’s testimony regarding when his wife was forced to have an intrauterine device placed by the Chinese government. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision concerning the adverse credibility finding.”). This inconsistency went to the heart of Sun’s claim that he suffered persecution on account of his violation of China’s one child policy, and thus the IJ and Board permissibly found Sun not credible. See Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047–48. Because Sun offered no other evidence in support of his claim for protection under the CAT apart from the testimony that the agency found not credible, the Board properly affirmed the IJ’s denial on that claim as well. See id. at 1049. PETITION DENIED. 2
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.
