FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN JIANG, No. 07-72203
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-903-110
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yan Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
JT/Research
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings,
Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo claims
of due process violations, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Jiang’s
asylum application was untimely because that finding is based on disputed facts.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam) (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts
were undisputed). Accordingly, we dismiss Jiang’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Jiang testified inconsistently about when she began proselytizing, see
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies regarding
matters that go to the heart of petitioner’s claim support an adverse credibility
determination), and her explanation for the inconsistencies does not compel a
contrary conclusion, see Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245. Accordingly, we deny Jiang’s
withholding of removal claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
JT/Research 2 07-72203
Jiang has failed to set forth any substantive argument regarding the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Finally, we reject Jiang’s contention that the BIA violated her due process
rights by engaging in fact-finding because it is belied by the record and because
she did not establish prejudice. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
JT/Research 3 07-72203