Pingping Chen 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PINGPING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73159
Agency No. A096-049-924
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Pingping Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73159 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition
for review.
Given the problems the agency identified regarding Chen’s documentary
evidence and testimony, the record does not compel reversal of the agency’s
adverse credibility finding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding that went to key elements of the
asylum claim, including identity); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th
Cir. 2005) (upholding adverse credibility finding where testimony lacked the
requisite “ring of truth”). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony,
Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at
1156.
Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and she does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than
not that she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --