Yiping Gong v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Yiping Gong v. Holder

323 F. App'x 632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 2009

DocketNo. 06-70750

StatusPublished

This text of 323 F. App'x 632 (Yiping Gong 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

Yiping Gong v. Holder, 323 F. App'x 632 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Yiping Gong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Gong’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum declaration concerning his claimed injuries during his detention. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007) (discrepancies between petitioner’s testimony and declaration substantially support adverse credibility finding). Moreover, because the IJ had reason to question Gong’s credibility, the IJ reasonably took into account Gong’s failure to provide corroborating evidence in support of his claim of religious persecution. See Li, 378 F.3d at 964. Accordingly, Gong failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See id. (so long as one identified ground is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, the court is bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding).

Because Gong failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for [633]*633withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Gong’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found to be not credible, and Gong points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, he has failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

**

Yiping Gong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Gong’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum declaration concerning his claimed injuries during his detention. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007) (discrepancies between petitioner’s testimony and declaration substantially support adverse credibility finding). Moreover, because the IJ had reason to question Gong’s credibility, the IJ reasonably took into account Gong’s failure to provide corroborating evidence in support of his claim of religious persecution. See Li, 378 F.3d at 964. Accordingly, Gong failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See id. (so long as one identified ground is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, the court is bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding).

Because Gong failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for [633]*633withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Gong’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found to be not credible, and Gong points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, he has failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 F. App'x 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yiping-gong-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack