Chen Xing v. Eric Holder, Jr.

539 F. App'x 839
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 5, 2013
Docket11-73280
StatusUnpublished

This text of 539 F. App'x 839 (Chen Xing v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chen Xing v. Eric Holder, Jr., 539 F. App'x 839 (9th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Xing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility finding and other factual findings underlying the determination that an applicant is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir.2010); Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864-65 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

The agency’s adverse credibility decision was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence given the totality of the circumstances, including non-trivial inconsistencies within Chen’s testimony and between his testimony, his written statement, and his father’s letter. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42 (9th Cir.2010). We reject Chen’s contention that the BIA failed to consider an explanation for why Chen’s father did not mention in his letter that police still visit their home looking for Chen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2010).

The BIA properly concluded that, in the absence of credible evidence, Chen cannot establish his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir.2011); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (holding that substantial evidence supported denial of withholding of removal because, absent the petitioner’s discredited testimony, no objective evidence established a clear probability of persecution).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rizk v. Holder
629 F.3d 1083 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Ling Zhou v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
437 F.3d 860 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Najmabadi v. Holder
597 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kin v. Holder
595 F.3d 1050 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Shrestha v. Holder
590 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
539 F. App'x 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chen-xing-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.