Dunquan Cai 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DUNQUAN CAI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70673
Agency No. A095-308-598
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Dunquan Cai, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70673 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and review de
novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because the discrepancy between Cai’s testimony and his asylum application
statement regarding the contraband religious materials Chinese customs officials
allegedly seized from his luggage is a substantial inconsistency that goes to the
heart of his claim. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043. Substantial evidence also
supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on Cai’s failure to provide
any corroboration of his religious activities in the United States. See Mejia-Paiz v.
INS, 111 F.3d 720, 723-24 (9th Cir. 1997). Cai’s explanations for the
discrepancies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Cai’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Cai’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found not
credible and he points to no other evidence in the record that shows it is more
likely than not he will be tortured in China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70673 3
57.
We reject Cai’s claims that the IJ violated his due process rights by
exhibiting bias, because the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that he
was prevented from reasonably presenting his case, and because he failed to
demonstrate prejudice. See Torres-Chavez v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th
Cir. 2009); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail
on a due process claim).
Cai’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --