Ni Ji Kun 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NI JI KUN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71120
Agency No. A098-297-857
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ni Ji Kun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse
credibility findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding
because Kun’s explanation for how he discovered the police were seeking
him—which was the reason he fled China—goes to the heart of his claim. See Li
v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (as long as one of the identified
grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, we
are bound to accept the agency’s adverse credibility finding); Singh-Kaur v. INS,
183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (adverse credibility finding can be based on
vague or unresponsive testimony). Despite questioning, Kun did not clarify how
he was able to tell his mother in June 2004 that he was going to his grandmother’s
house; was non-responsive when asked for details about why the police wanted to
arrest him; and gave no audible response when asked if there was another reason
the police would want to arrest him. In the absence of credible testimony, Kun’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Kun’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible and he points to no other evidence in the record to show it is more

-- 2 of 3 --

3
likely than not that he would be tortured in China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --