United States v. 2020-09-10 | 15-72613 | FEN CHEN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEN CHENG CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72613

Agency No. A200-829-624

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Fen Cheng Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

*
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

SEP 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-72613
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistent testimony regarding Chen’s travel to the United States. See
id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”). Chen’s explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, we deny the petition for review as to Chen’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chen’s arguments concerning the
merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004)
(courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results
they reach).
As stated in the court’s September 10, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.