Jorge Castillo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

551 F. App'x 409
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 3, 2014
Docket11-73339
StatusUnpublished

This text of 551 F. App'x 409 (Jorge Castillo 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
Jorge Castillo v. Eric Holder, Jr., 551 F. App'x 409 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

*410 MEMORANDUM **

Linbao Wang and Qiaoying Sun, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 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.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on Sun’s shifting testimony about whether Wang was at home when family planning officials arrived at their house, evasiveness in petitioners’ testimony, and inconsistent testimony about what happened to Sun’s prior medical history booklet. See id. at 1048 (totality of the circumstances supported adverse credibility determination); see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (noting the “special deference” accorded to credibility determinations based on demeanor). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion it is more likely than not that petitioners will be tortured if returned to China, the CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.

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)
Shrestha v. Holder
590 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
551 F. App'x 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-castillo-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.