Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
HONGFU CHEN, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Hongfu Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on Chen's inconsistent and implausible testimony as to the legality of church attendance in China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence supported adverse credibility finding where petitioner had ample opportunity to explain inconsistencies but failed to offer reasonable and plausible explanations). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider any claim by Chen based on China's family planning policy because he did not raise it in his administrative proceedings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-72473
Decided: June 02, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)