Xi Tian He v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Xi Tian He v. Holder

381 F. App'x 709

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2010

Docket07-72914

StatusUnpublished

This text of 381 F. App'x 709 (Xi Tian He v. Holder) 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

Xi Tian He v. Holder, 381 F. App'x 709 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Xi Tian He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility determination because He’s testimony was inconsistent with his wife’s declaration as to whether his wife had been forcibly sterilized, see Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir.2003), and He’s explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

He’s due process claim regarding faulty translation fails because the transcriber did not indicate he was experiencing any difficulty in translation, He’s counsel was able to correct and clarify He’s testimony before the IJ, see Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994), and He faded to establish that a better translation likely would have made a difference in the outcome, see Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir.1993).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review He’s CAT claim because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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 **

Xi Tian He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s adverse credibility determination because He’s testimony was inconsistent with his wife’s declaration as to whether his wife had been forcibly sterilized, see Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1257-58 (9th Cir.2003), and He’s explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). In the absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

He’s due process claim regarding faulty translation fails because the transcriber did not indicate he was experiencing any difficulty in translation, He’s counsel was able to correct and clarify He’s testimony before the IJ, see Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994), and He faded to establish that a better translation likely would have made a difference in the outcome, see Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir.1993).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review He’s CAT claim because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

984 F.2d 1056 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Mihaly Kotasz, Agnes Horvath Kotasz, Matyas Kotasz, and Erika Kotasz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

31 F.3d 847 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Shobna Chandar Lata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

204 F.3d 1241 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Gil Ilano Colmenar,petitioner v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

210 F.3d 967 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Jamal Ali Farah v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

348 F.3d 1153 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)