Jianfeng Chen v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANFENG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72976
Agency No. A088-702-082
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ)
found Chen not credible after noting inconsistencies in the record, Chen’s evolving
and embellished claims, and her failure to corroborate her claims.
FILED
APR 15 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
Chen contradicted her own statements as to whether her father had told her
that he didn’t receive a package containing Bibles. Chen also exaggerated the
story of her father’s interrogation during her oral testimony. Chen’s declaration
indicated that her father spontaneously lost consciousness and went into a coma
while in custody. But, during cross-examination, Chen embellished this story by
adding that her father was beaten, kicked and electrocuted. Chen also failed to
introduce any evidence corroborating the police torture of her father, such as
medical records or testimony from Chen’s mother or her father’s co-parishioners.
Chen testified that, after she completed the asylum application, her mother
informed her that the police came to their house threatening to punish Chen
severely if she didn’t report to the local police. But Chen didn’t mention this
police visit to the asylum officer who interviewed her, when she was asked in court
if she had any changes to make to her application, or during direct examination.
Instead, she first mentioned this development a year after its alleged occurrence.
Because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding, we
deny Chen’s petition to review her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 966–67 (9th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
2. An adverse credibility finding does not necessarily preclude a finding of
relief under CAT. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001).
Chen, however, failed to produce any evidence to make a showing that it was
“more likely than not that . . . she would be tortured if removed.” Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, Chen admitted that her mother and siblings had never suffered any
incidents in China for practicing their faith. Thus, substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s denial of Chen’s CAT claim. See id.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --