YONGPING CHEN, aka Enping Chen, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: March 11, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Insoo Mok, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Samuel I. Mok, Saipan, MP, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anna E. Juarez, Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Yongping Chen, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony and his sister’s testimony as to the location of the house church, the days of the week the house church meetings were held, whether a pastor led the house church, and the date of their mother’s retirement. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Chen’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Chen’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not consider Chen’s arguments as to the merits of his CAT claim, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Chen does not contend that the BIA erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.