Case ID: f-appx_624/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHONGJIN XU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72452.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Thomas Ogden, Counsel, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Respondent’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings is granted.

Chong,jin Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

The agency found Xu not credible based on internally inconsistent evidence, inconsistencies between her testimony and application, and on vague, confusing, and non-responsive testimony. We lack jurisdiction to review Xu’s contention that the agency should have considered the eleven-month gap between her immigration hearings in assessing her credibility. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Apart from this contention, Xu does not raise any substantive challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility findings. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

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