SU WEN OU, AKA Shiwen Ou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SU WEN OU, AKA Shiwen Ou,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71338
Agency No. A077-997-656
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Shiwen Ou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v.
FILED
OCT 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility determination
because numerous inconsistencies existed between Ou’s application, his brother’s
testimony and separate asylum application, including discrepancies between their
household registers. See Kaur v. Gonzalez, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2005)
(numerous inconsistencies cast doubt on a petitioner’s story by creating an
“indication of dishonesty”); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2000)
(adverse credibility finding supported where inconsistencies between testimony
and application went to the heart of the claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider both Ou’s due process claim and his
argument that the IJ erred in finding he filed a frivolous asylum application,
because Ou failed to raise these claims in his brief on appeal to the Board. Abebe v.
Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009). The Board’s statement that Ou
“has not specifically challenged” the IJ’s finding of frivolousness on appeal “made
clear that it did not pass on that issue.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1041
(9th Cir. 2005).
Ou does not challenge the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT
claims and therefore they are waived. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --