Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEZHU JIN; Haiyan Huang, a.k.a. Ijan Wang, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74752.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 7, 2011.
    Dezhu Jin, Gardena, CA, pro se.
    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, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dezhu Jin and Haiyan Huang, natives and citizens of China, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Huang’s testimony was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with her asylum application regarding whether Chinese police beat and tortured her during an alleged six-day detention. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Huang’s explanation for the inconsistencies does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and they point to no evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to China, their CAT claim als0 fails. See id_ at 1156-57.

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