Lijun Sun v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Lijun Sun v. Eric Holder, Jr.

568 F. App'x 493

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2014

Docket12-72543

StatusUnpublished

This text of 568 F. App'x 493 (Lijun Sun 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

Lijun Sun v. Eric Holder, Jr., 568 F. App'x 493 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lijun Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 (9th Cir.2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on its findings regarding Sun’s demeanor and responsiveness and based on Sun’s inability to provide details regarding his church attendance in the United States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances, including based on unresponsive and undetailed testimony); Sing h-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (giving special deference to IJ’s observation of petition *494 er’s demeanor). In light of this conclusion, we reject Sun’s contentions that the agency did not give adequate weight to evidence of country conditions and erred in failing to address his claim of a pattern or practice of persecution. Accordingly, Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sun failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006). We reject Sun’s contention that the agency improperly evaluated his CAT claim.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lijun Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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 (9th Cir.2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on its findings regarding Sun’s demeanor and responsiveness and based on Sun’s inability to provide details regarding his church attendance in the United States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances, including based on unresponsive and undetailed testimony); Sing h-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999) (giving special deference to IJ’s observation of petition *494 er’s demeanor). In light of this conclusion, we reject Sun’s contentions that the agency did not give adequate weight to evidence of country conditions and erred in failing to address his claim of a pattern or practice of persecution. Accordingly, Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sun failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006). We reject Sun’s contention that the agency improperly evaluated his CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 F. App'x 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lijun-sun-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack