Ping 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70355
Agency No. A088-130-025
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ping Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
SEP 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70355 2
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies in Chen’s testimony and application about the
presence of the house church pastor on the day petitioner was allegedly arrested,
and based on the fact that both his asylum application and his father’s letter
omitted the fact that his parents were allegedly forced to pay a significant fine. See
id. at 1047 (agency’s adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
“totality of the circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974
(9th Cir. 2011) (BIA not compelled to accept petitioner’s explanations for
inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’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 --