Yuanjian Tang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

13-72843Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit24.11.2015

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUANJIAN TANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72843
Agency No. A089-677-010
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Yuanjian Tang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
FILED
NOV 24 2015
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 --

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on Tang’s admitted lies at his hearing about whether his wife and son applied for
visas and visited the United States, his continued evasiveness on this topic, and his
admitted lies to officials at the U.S. consulate in an effort to obtain a visa to
vacation in Las Vegas. Id. at 1048; see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181
(9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts
doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264,
1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent documents when they are no longer
necessary for the immediate escape from persecution do support an adverse
inference.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Tang’s asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72843 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.