Lihuan Sun, aka Song Hui Kim 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).
The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, U.S. District Judge for the Northern***
District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIHUAN SUN, aka Song Hui Kim,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70894
Agency No. A078-440-854
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges; and BENNETT, District
Judge.***
Lihuan Sun (Sun), also known as Song Hui Kim, a native of China and a
citizen of North Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
FILED
JUN 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT).
1. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination.
Sun’s omission from her asylum application of the arrest at a family church
meeting was not a “failure to remember non-material, trivial details that were only
incidentally related to her claim of persecution.” Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061,
1064 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Sun waived any challenges to the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding concerning her forced abortion. See Ghahremani v.
Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”) (citation omitted).
2. Since Sun’s testimony was not deemed credible to grant relief, this court
would have to conclude that the pertinent country reports compel the conclusion
that Sun is more likely than not to be tortured if removed to China. See Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010). However, those country reports
do not indicate that Sun “would face any particular threat of torture beyond that of
which all citizens of [China] are at risk.” Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1051–52 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s denial of Sun’s application for CAT relief. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --