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.
Jiayou SUN, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Jiayou Sun, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding or removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility finding, which was based on inconsistencies in Sun's testimony regarding when his wife was forced to have an intrauterine device placed by the Chinese government. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Our review is limited to the BIA's decision concerning the adverse credibility finding.”). This inconsistency went to the heart of Sun's claim that he suffered persecution on account of his violation of China's one child policy, and thus the IJ and Board permissibly found Sun not credible. See Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047–48.
Because Sun offered no other evidence in support of his claim for protection under the CAT apart from the testimony that the agency found not credible, the Board properly affirmed the IJ's denial on that claim as well. See id. at 1049.
PETITION DENIED.
Response sent, thank you
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. 14-73519
Decided: August 10, 2020
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)