Min v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Min v. Gonzales

137 F. App'x 95

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 2005

DocketNo. 04-73351

StatusPublished

This text of 137 F. App'x 95 (Min v. Gonzales) 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

Min v. Gonzales, 137 F. App'x 95 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Wei Min, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. See Zi Lin Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 616 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Min’s testimony regarding the place where he was arrested after organizing a demonstration was inconsistent with the testimony of his witness. The discrepancy relates to the basis for his alleged fear of persecution and goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

***

Wei Min, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. See Zi Lin Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 616 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Min’s testimony regarding the place where he was arrested after organizing a demonstration was inconsistent with the testimony of his witness. The discrepancy relates to the basis for his alleged fear of persecution and goes to the heart of his asylum claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 F. App'x 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/min-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack