Xu Yang v. Gonzales

First Circuit

Xu Yang v. Gonzales

139 F. App'x 297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 2005

Docket05-1130

StatusPublished

This text of 139 F. App'x 297 (Xu Yang v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xu Yang v. Gonzales, 139 F. App'x 297 (1st Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Xu Yang (‘Tang”) seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against Torture. Yang’s only argument on appeal is that the IJ erred in finding him not *298 credible. The main reason the IJ discounted Yang’s testimony was because of discrepancies, which the IJ recounted, between Yang’s testimony at the hearing and his affidavit in support of his application for asylum. We have examined the record and find substantial evidence to support the IJ’s finding of discrepancies between Yang’s testimony and affidavit. These discrepancies are significant and major, relating to dates and events that go to the heart of Yang’s asylum claim. They amply support the IJ’s determination that Yang was not a credible witness. See Bojorques-Villanueva v. INS, 194 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir.1999) (upholding adverse credibility finding based on multiple inconsistencies going to central facts of claim).

The BIA’s order is affirmed. The petition for review is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Xu Yang (‘Tang”) seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Yang’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against Torture. Yang’s only argument on appeal is that the IJ erred in finding him not *298 credible. The main reason the IJ discounted Yang’s testimony was because of discrepancies, which the IJ recounted, between Yang’s testimony at the hearing and his affidavit in support of his application for asylum. We have examined the record and find substantial evidence to support the IJ’s finding of discrepancies between Yang’s testimony and affidavit. These discrepancies are significant and major, relating to dates and events that go to the heart of Yang’s asylum claim. They amply support the IJ’s determination that Yang was not a credible witness. See Bojorques-Villanueva v. INS, 194 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir.1999) (upholding adverse credibility finding based on multiple inconsistencies going to central facts of claim).

The BIA’s order is affirmed. The petition for review is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xu-yang-v-gonzales-ca1-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack