Wenli Gu; Na Shing Li 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).
KAD/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENLI GU; NA SHING LI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72375
Agency Nos. A098-449-230
A098-449-231
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Wenli Gu and her husband Na Shing Li, natives and citizens of China,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
Gu’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-72375 2
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over the petition for review with respect to Li’s claims
because he failed to join Gu’s appeal to the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004), and accordingly dismiss in part as to Li’s claims.
In her opening brief, Gu did not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that her asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as to
past persecution because the inconsistencies regarding Gu’s employment history,
removal of her IUD, and the number of her forced abortions go to the heart of her
claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence also
supports the IJ’s finding that Gu failed to establish a clear probability of
persecution. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, Gu’s withholding of removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 07-72375 3
Because Gu’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not credible,
and she points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not she would be
tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim fails. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d
1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --