FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANG CHEN, No. 08-70916
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-462-401
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Qiang 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,
*
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).
Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the omission from his asylum application and declaration of the tip
Chen received that the police were investigating his family, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2004) (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the
heart of the petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility finding), and his
failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omission, see Rivera v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Chen’s vague testimony
regarding his Christian practices in the United States. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111
F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir. 1997) (vague testimony regarding religious affiliation
supported adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony,
Chen’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in
an underground Christian church fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chen failed to
establish that the Chinese government “forced” his fiancee to have an abortion. Cf.
Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Chen’s
2 08-70916
claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B)
fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70916