Chunxiang Lu 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNXIANG LU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74178
Agency No. A095-876-866
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Chunxiang Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74178 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on Lu’s internally inconsistent testimony as to the motivation for Lu’s three
trips to the United States during the year of her claimed arrest in China. See id. at
741-42 (inconsistency goes to the heart of the claim if it concerns events central to
petitioner’s version of why she was persecuted). Substantial evidence further
supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on Lu’s evasive answers to
questions regarding the purpose of her previous trips to this country. See Wang v.
INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2003) (“An asylum seeker’s ‘obvious
evasiveness’ may be enough to uphold an adverse credibility finding.”). Absent
credible testimony, Lu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --