FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAOQING CHEN, No. 10-71504
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-113-526
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Shaoqing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection 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, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on the numerous inconsistencies between Chen’s testimony at his hearing and his
testimony before an asylum officer, including inconsistencies regarding whether or
not Chen signed photographs of himself while he was detained, the distance to the
police station, the location of his interrogation room, the number and description of
the police officers who interrogated him, and the amount he paid a snakehead. See
id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID
Act’s “totality of circumstances”); see also Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271,
1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility finding was supported based on numerous
inconsistencies regarding the details of petitioner’s abduction, especially where her
entire claim centered around only two events). Chen’s explanations do not compel
a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We
reject Chen’s challenge to the agency’s reliance on the asylum officer’s notes. See
Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing indicia of
reliability for an asylum officer’s notes). Further, Chen’s contention that the IJ
2 10-71504
was predisposed to discredit his testimony is not supported by the record. 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).
Finally, Chen’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that
shows it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71504