Hongfu Chen v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGFU CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72473
Agency No. A087-802-860
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Hongfu Chen, 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 and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72473
substantial evidence 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Chen’s inconsistent and implausible testimony as to the legality of church
attendance in China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see also Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence supported adverse credibility
finding where petitioner had ample opportunity to explain inconsistencies but
failed to offer reasonable and plausible explanations). 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).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider any claim by Chen based on China’s
family planning policy because he did not raise it in his administrative
proceedings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust claim in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --