Mei 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MEI CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71094
Agency No. A095-673-936
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mei Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming 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 8
FILED
JAN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility
findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
The agency’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence
because at Chen’s airport interview Chen relied solely on her participation in Falun
Gong and omitted any mention of fear based on China’s family planning policies.
See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004) (sworn airport interview
statement was a reliable impeachment source that supported adverse credibility
determination); id. at 962 (as long as one of the identified grounds is supported by
substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, we are bound to accept the
agency’s adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible and she points to no other evidence in the record to show it is more
likely than not that she would be tortured in China, her CAT claim fails. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --