Lifang Chen 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LIFANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70186
Agency No. A098-391-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Lifang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
NOV 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70186 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created
by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
The IJ found Chen not credible for a number of reasons, including Chen’s
unclear testimony regarding how school authorities punished her, her evasiveness
during parts of her testimony, the omission of her parents’ arrest from her asylum
application, and the inconsistency between her testimony and the record of her
credible fear interview regarding who involved her in distributing Falun Gong
pamphlets. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the Real ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Malkandi v.
Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 917-19 (9th Cir. 2009). In the absence of credible
testimony, Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and Chen does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70186 3
than not she would be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --