Qiang Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Qiang Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

422 F. App'x 642

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2011

Docket08-70916

StatusUnpublished

This text of 422 F. App'x 642 (Qiang Chen 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

Qiang Chen v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 422 F. App'x 642 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Qiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon the omission from his asylum application and declaration of the tip Chen received that the police were investigating his family, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004) (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and his failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omission, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence *643 also supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Chen’s vague testimony regarding his Christian practices in the United States. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir.1997) (vague testimony regarding religious affiliation supported adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in an underground Christian church fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chen failed to establish that the Chinese government “forced” his fiancee to have an abortion. Cf. Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Qiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based upon the omission from his asylum application and declaration of the tip Chen received that the police were investigating his family, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004) (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and his failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omission, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence *643 also supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Chen’s vague testimony regarding his Christian practices in the United States. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir.1997) (vague testimony regarding religious affiliation supported adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in an underground Christian church fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chen failed to establish that the Chinese government “forced” his fiancee to have an abortion. Cf. Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F. App'x 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/qiang-chen-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack