FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUANG MING CHEN, No. 11-71322
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-770-114
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Chuang Ming 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
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act,
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on both the significant inconsistency regarding the basis for Chen’s asylum
claim and the inconsistency regarding the date of his wife’s forced sterilization by
family planning authorities in China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47. The
agency was not compelled to accept Chen’s explanations for the inconsistencies.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Chen’s
contention the BIA ignored his explanation for the inconsistent dates he provided
for his wife’s forced sterilization. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71322