Mingqing Chen v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MINGQING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70106
Agency No. A200-755-522
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Mingqing Chen, 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 the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
* 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70106
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition
for review.
The agency determined Chen was not credible based on discrepancies
between Chen’s asylum statement and testimony regarding the timing of family
planning authorities’ visits to his home, and based on omissions related to his
alleged hospital stay. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances). Chen’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We
reject Chen’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his explanations. Thus,
Chen’s asylum claim fails.
In the absence of credible testimony, Chen’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 --