FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHEN XING, a.k.a. Xing Chen, No. 11-73280
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-926-890
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 20, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Xing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s adverse credibility finding and other factual findings underlying the
determination that an applicant is ineligible for asylum and withholding of
removal. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010); Zhou v. Gonzales,
437 F.3d 860, 864-65 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency’s adverse credibility decision was reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence given the totality of the circumstances, including non-trivial
inconsistencies within Chen’s testimony and between his testimony, his written
statement, and his father’s letter. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42
(9th Cir. 2010). We reject Chen’s contention that the BIA failed to consider an
explanation for why Chen’s father did not mention in his letter that police still visit
their home looking for Chen. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th
Cir. 2010).
The BIA properly concluded that, in the absence of credible evidence, Chen
cannot establish his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (holding
that substantial evidence supported denial of withholding of removal because,
absent the petitioner’s discredited testimony, no objective evidence established a
clear probability of persecution).
2 11-73280
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73280