Mealdey Suong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MEALDEY SUONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75775
Agency No. A096-155-975
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, REINHARDT and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mealdey Suong, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Where the
FILED
MAR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without issuing an opinion, we review the IJ’s
decision. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2004). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility findings
for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion. I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). We affirm.
The IJ denied Suong’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal,
finding that she failed to testify credibly in support of her claims. Substantial
evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The IJ found that
petitioner stated in her declaration that the Cambodian People’s Party (“CPP”)
threatened to kill her at her workplace, but she did not mention this death threat
during her testimony before the IJ. The IJ also found that petitioner testified that
she brought letters showing her Sam Rainsy Party (“SRP”) membership when she
first entered the United States, but the letters are dated after her arrival date.
Finally, the IJ found that petitioner provided inconsistent testimony regarding the
number of times that she was allegedly followed by the CPP. Because the record
supports the IJ’s findings that there are inconsistencies regarding the death threats
that petitioner received, the number of times that she was followed, and her SRP
membership papers, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported. See Goel v.
Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the adverse credibility
finding was supported based on inconsistencies); Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the discrepancies between petitioner’s
testimony, declaration and letter of membership supported an adverse credibility
finding).
Because petitioner’s CAT claim was based on the testimony that the IJ found
not credible, and she points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not
that she would be tortured if she returned to Cambodia, her CAT claim, which the
IJ separately considered, also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, petitioner failed to show that the BIA erred when it summarily
affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(i).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --