Ming Ching Chang, aka Mingqing Zhang; JINGHUA ZHEN v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
KAD/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MING CHING CHANG, aka Mingqing
Zhang; JINGHUA ZHEN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71350
Agency Nos. A095-673-930
A095-673-395
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ming Ching Chang and her son, Jinghua Zhen, natives and citizens of China,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-71350 2
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Chang’s testimony about the birth of her children and her date of
sterilization was inconsistent with documentary evidence, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and the IJ reasonably doubted Chang’s explanations,
see id. at 963-64. In the absence of credible testimony, Chang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
In her opening brief, Chang fails to challenge the IJ’s determination that she
did not establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
There is no merit to Chang’s contention that the IJ violated the
confidentiality provision of 8 C.F.R. §1208.6. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(1)(i)
(providing an exception for any United States government official having a need to
examine information in connection with the adjudication of asylum applications).

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-71350 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --