NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
YUSHUN PIAO, No. 12-70588
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-131-038
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yushun Piao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.
2004). We review de novo claims of due process violations. Colmenar v. INS, 210
F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Piao’s testimony and her supporting medical
documentation regarding whether she received treatment in China due to
complications related to an abortion, or whether she received treatment for the
removal of a tumor. See Li, 378 F.3d. at 962 (adverse credibility determinations
supported by specific, cogent reasons that go to the heart of the claim will be
upheld). The agency was not compelled to accept Piao’s explanation for the
discrepancy, especially where the explanation led to additional inconsistencies
regarding the issuance and receipt of her Chinese medical document. See Zamanov
v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept
petitioner’s explanation). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding
that the U.S. doctor’s letter did not rehabilitate her testimony. See Li, 378 F.3d at
962. Further, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Piao an additional
2 12-70588
continuance. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (setting out factors to consider). In the
absence of credible testimony, Piao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Piao’s due process claims fail because the BIA did not base its adverse
credibility determination on differences between the original asylum application
and amendments, and because Piao did not show prejudice from any alleged
problems with translation at the hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim);
Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1993) (rejecting due process claim
where petitioners failed to demonstrate how inadequate translation prevented them
from presenting relevant evidence, or that better translation would have made a
difference in the outcome of the hearing).
Finally, because Piao’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA
found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it
is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim
also fails. Id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70588