Jin Guo v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

421 F. App'x 697
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 14, 2011
Docket08-72261
StatusUnpublished

This text of 421 F. App'x 697 (Jin Guo v. Eric H. 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
Jin Guo v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 421 F. App'x 697 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jin Feng Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.' We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the discrepancy between Guo’s declaration and his testimony regarding whether he presented a written petition to a government official during the August 15, 2003, protest march goes to the heart of his claim. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (“[s]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”) (internal quotation omitted). In the absence of credible testimony, Guo’s asy *698 lum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156:

Because Guo’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

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

Jamal Ali Farah v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
348 F.3d 1153 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Chun He Li v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
378 F.3d 959 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
421 F. App'x 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jin-guo-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.