Weiguo Cheng v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Weiguo Cheng v. Eric Holder, Jr.

481 F. App'x 332

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2012

Docket10-72207

StatusUnpublished

This text of 481 F. App'x 332 (Weiguo Cheng 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

Weiguo Cheng v. Eric Holder, Jr., 481 F. App'x 332 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Weiguo Cheng, 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 (“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 the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Cheng’s testimony and written statement regarding the timing and duration of the period Cheng and his wife hid before the alleged abortion, and based on the inconsistency between his account of the alleged harm and the civil mediation writ document. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Cheng’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We do not reach Cheng’s arguments re *333 garding the merits of his claims or the applicability of Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2008), because the credibility finding is dispositive. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Cheng’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not credible, and because the country condition evidence in the record does not establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Cheng’s claim that the IJ exhibited bias against him because he failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779-80 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition 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 **

Weiguo Cheng, 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 (“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 the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Cheng’s testimony and written statement regarding the timing and duration of the period Cheng and his wife hid before the alleged abortion, and based on the inconsistency between his account of the alleged harm and the civil mediation writ document. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Cheng’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We do not reach Cheng’s arguments re *333 garding the merits of his claims or the applicability of Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520 (BIA 2008), because the credibility finding is dispositive. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because Cheng’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not credible, and because the country condition evidence in the record does not establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Cheng’s claim that the IJ exhibited bias against him because he failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779-80 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition 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)

481 F. App'x 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiguo-cheng-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack