Case ID: f-appx_202/html/0191-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GUANG LIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
    
    Decided Sept. 18, 2006.
    Elaine Yang, City of Industry, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stephen J. Flynn, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guang Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2005), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Chen’s testimony was internally inconsistent regarding his wife’s alleged abortion, the central event of Chen’s asylum claim. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). Finally, we give special deference to the IJ’s demeanor finding because the IJ relied on “non-verbal factors ... [that he] explicitly described in [his] opinion.” Id. at 1137.

In the absence of credible testimony, Chen has failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding and CAT protection. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.