United States v. 2020-03-11 | 15-71178 | YONGPING CHEN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YONGPING CHEN, AKA Enping Chen,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71178

Agency No. A087-957-940

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Yongping 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

*
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).
FILED

MAR 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-71178
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony and his sister’s testimony as to
the location of the house church, the days of the week the house church meetings
were held, whether a pastor led the house church, and the date of their mother’s
retirement. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances). Chen’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Chen’s withholding of removal claim
fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not consider Chen’s arguments as to the merits of his CAT claim, see
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited
to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Chen does not contend that the BIA erred
in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief,
see Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.