FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANJI CHEN, No. 09-70501
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-448-251
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Shanji 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 asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004), and we review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395
F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based
upon the IJ’s conclusion that several of Chen’s documents likely were fabricated,
see Desta, 365 F.3d at 745 (fraudulent documents going to heart of claim may
justify adverse credibility finding), and based upon Chen’s failure to provide
sufficiently detailed testimony about his detention and mistreatment, see
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999) (approving agency’s
finding that an applicant’s testimony could be doubted given its lack of
specificity). 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).
Because Chen’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
The BIA did not err by declining to consider the new evidence Chen
submitted on appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). To the extent the BIA
2 09-70501
construed Chen’s submission of new evidence as a motion to reopen or motion to
remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because Chen
failed to demonstrate that his additional evidence was previously unavailable. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-70501