GUIHUA GU V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72220 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUL 31 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUIHUA GU, No. 11-72220 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-483-488 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 24, 2013 ** Before: ALARCÃ N, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Guihua Gu, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The agency concluded Gu was not credible for a number of reasons, including the implausibility that Gu - whose claim rested on his purported confrontations with government officials over compensation for demolished properties - would not bother to inquire whether the government had ultimately compensated landowners, his general testimony that lacked detail, and the inconsistencies and implausibilities related to his employment. Substantial evidence supports the agency s finding. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of the circumstances). We reject Gu s contention that the agency did not give his documentary evidence adequate weight. Accordingly, Gu 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 11-72220

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.