Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0249-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SHAOYUN QU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74683.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 1, 2010.
    Ray Hellwig, Esquire, Law Offices of Ray Hellwig, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Trade Nicole Jones, Trial, OIL, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously condudes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shaoyun Qu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the IJ made a specific and cogent demean- or finding, see Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir.2003), and because the inconsistencies with respect to Qu’s home address, as well as his admission that he fabricated this address on his asylum application, are material and go to the heart of his claims, see Don, 476 F.3d at 741-43. Further, because the IJ had reason to question Qu’s credibility, Qu’s failure to provide corroborating evidence undermines his claim. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1091-92 (9th Cir.2000). Absent credible testimony, Qu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.