Chun Xue 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CHUN XUE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70319
Agency No. A089-099-727
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Chun Xue, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
SEP 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70319 2
the agency’s factual findings, applying the 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.
Xue claimed that during an incident with Chinese officials, his girlfriend
told him to run away, and that he ran to a friend’s house. However, a letter Xue
submitted from his girlfriend states he was “taken away by family planning
officials” during the incident. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination based on this inconsistency. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490
F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistency between petitioner’s documentary
evidence and testimony was a proper basis for an adverse credibility finding);
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to
the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the
claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Xue’s explanations do not compel a
contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject
Xue’s unsupported contention that the BIA cherry-picked the facts or failed to
consider the totality of circumstances. In the absence of credible testimony, Xue’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --