NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANYANDI CHEN, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-70411 Agency No. A098-453-324
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2014 ** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Yanyandi Chen petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. 

# FILED
JUN 19 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).1. The BIA affirmed an adverse credibility determination by the immigration judge (IJ) because Chen’s account at the hearing of the persecution he allegedly suffered in China differed materially from his written asylum application. Chen did not mention in his asylum application that he was part of a group that assaulted Chinese security officers as they sought to arrest the preacher of the underground church he atte nded; that he was home when security officers subsequently came to arrest him but escaped by jumping out of a window; or that his father was arrested and de tained for two months. Although those events allegedly took place only four months before Chen submitted his asylum application, he did not disclose them until four years later near th e end of his hearing before the IJ. When asked to explain the omission of his father’s detention, Chen claimed that he “forgot to write it.” A letter submitted by Chen fro m his wife also contained no reference to an altercation with Chinese officials at the underground church or to his father’s detention. “To support an adverse credibility determination, the BIA must have a legitimate articulable basis to question th e petitioner’s credibility, and must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Singh v. Ashcroft , 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation mark s omitted). Inconsistent testimony and contradictions between an applicant’s testimony and other evidence may support an
2adverse credibility determination. See, e.g. , Desta v. Ashcroft , 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Chen filed his asylum app lication before the effective date of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 St at. 231, inconsistencies in testimony used to support an adverse credib ility determination must go to the heart of his claims. Desta , 365 F.3d at 745. The inconsistencies in Chen ’s statements and his failu re to submit corroborative evidence that would explain them went to the heart of his claim of persecution, because they concerned “dramatic, pivotal ev ent[s]” that “precipitated his flight” from China and formed the basis of his claim of persecution. Alvarez-Santos v. INS , 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). These incons istencies provide substantial evidence to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. 2. Even assuming the credibility of Ch en’s testimony, the BIA concluded that Chen did not establish past pers ecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. Persecution requires the infliction of severe physical or mental suffering on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular soci al group, or political opinion. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 960–62 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Chen did not claim that Chinese officials harmed, arrested, or threatened him at the time of the incident. Rather, he testified th at he was part of a 3group that shoved two unarmed Chinese security officers to the floor during an argument as they sought to arrest a preacher. Although Chen testified that the authorities thereafter went to his home looking for him and detained his father for two months, the BI A concluded that he had not demonstrated these actions were motivated by his religious beliefs. See Chanco v. INS , 82 F.3d 298, 301 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Persons avoiding lawful prosecution for common crimes are not ordinarily deemedrefugees.”). That conclusion was supported by substantial eviden ce in the reco rd. Chen’s family, which is similarly situated to him, continues to practice Christianity and to attend the same underground church without government interference, as it did for year s before he was involved in the assault of the security officers. See Zhao v. Mukasey , 540 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the well-being of si milarly-situated persons who remain behind is relevant to whether an alien credib ly fears persecution on account of a protected ground). Moreover, Chen testified that the last time the authorities inquired about him was in 2004. 3. Because Chen failed to meet the st andard for asylum, he necessarily cannot satisfy the more stringent clear probability of persecution standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

44. The use of a Mandarin interpreter did not violate Chen’s due process rights. Chen—who was repr esented by counsel—did not object to the use of a Mandarin interpreter, swore in his asylum application that Mandarin was his best language, and affirmed his understanding of Mandarin at the hearing. When Chen stated during the hearing that he could only answer the IJ’s question in the Foo Ching dialect, the IJ rephrased the question and Ch en answered. Neither the IJ nor the BIA relied upon Chen’s response to that question in finding that Chen was not credible or that he had not suffered persecuti on on account of a protected ground. See PerezLastor v. INS , 208 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a petitioner’s due process rights are violated only if the mistak en translation affected the outcome of the proceedings). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

5