### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60570 Summary Calendar

ZHEN YUAN,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 346 926

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Zhen Yuan challenges the denial of relief by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A n a tive and citizen of China, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In doing so, she asserted that Chinese family-planning authorities discovered her underag e pregnancy, abducted her, forced her to undergo a medical exam, scheduled a forced abortion, confined her, and beat her i n s uch a way that caused movement in the fetus’ position. (The child was later born in the United U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 12, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60570 Document: 00511918473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2012No. 11-60570

States.) Yuan’s written statement and oral testimony contained inconsistences concerning the stage of her pregnancy during relevant events and concerning whether she was confined to a cell u n d e r a mountain or in a small house. Additionally, her statements contained inconsistencies concerning who advised her to come to the United States, facilitated contact with a smuggler, and gave h e r a Canadian passport. She also submitted forged notarial certificates to authenticate the documents that purportedly proved her story. The immigration judge (IJ): denied withholding of removal, after finding Yuan was not credible; denied asylum, on the ground that Yuan’s application

was time-barred; and denied relief under the CAT, because Yuan failed to show it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if she returned to China. The BIA affirmed the credibility finding and the denial of relief. Yuan does not adequately address either the BIA’s determination that her asylum application was time-barred, or the finding that she was not likely to be tortured upon her return to China. Therfore, she has abandoned her asylum and CAT claims. E

. g
. , So a djede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, only the withholding-of-removal claim remains. Our court may review the BIA’s decision, b u t not the IJ’s. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Where, as here, however, the IJ’s findings affected the BIA’s decision, the IJ’s findings are also reviewable. Id. Fac t ual findi n g s a r e reviewed for substantial evidence, and our court will not reverse such a finding unless the evidence compels it. Id. “The alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 200 9). To obtain withholding of removal, an applicant must sho w a c l e ar probability that she will be persecuted upon return to her home country. Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). Under the REAL I D Act, the applicant’s testimony, by itself, may be sufficient to s u s t ai n the burden of
2 Case: 11-60570 Document: 00511918473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2012No. 11-60570

proving eligibility for relief, “but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that [her] testimony is credible, is persuasiv e , and refers to specific facts suffici e nt t o demonstrate” that she is entitled to relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(C). In challenging the IJ’s adverse credib ility finding, Yuan asserts for the first time that certain inconsistencies between her w rit t e n statement and her testimony resulted from an erroneous translation of the written statement. Of
course, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider issues not raised before the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Claudio v. Holder , 601 F.3d 316, 318 (5th Cir. 201 0). Additio n al ly , Yuan contends the discrepancies between her written and oral statements concerning the stage of her pregnancy durin g r e l e v ant events

were insignificant. The IJ was required to consider the totality of the circumstances in making the credibil ity determination, including “the consistency between the applicant’s

. . . written and oral statements

. . . , without regard to whether an in c o n s i s t ency . . . goes to the heart of the applicant’s

c l ai m”. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Accordingly, the IJ appropria t e ly considered the discrepancies. See id. ; Wang, 569 F.3d at 538-39. Yuan also contends it was improper for th e I J to make an adverse credibility determination based on her s ub m ission of fraudulent notarial certificates because the record does not show that she had reason to k n ow the documents were forgeries. Yuan admitted that she knew her father obtained the certificates when government offices were closed for the Chinese New Year and that her father paid an exorbitant sum for them. The Second Circuit cases she cites are inapposite, as the IJ did not make the adverse credibility determination based solely on the fraudulent documents, and the IJ found that Yuan had reason to believe the documents were falsified. In the light of the inconsistencies in Yuan’s statements and the fraudulent docume nt s s h e submitted, Yuan fails to demonstrate that “it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make

. . . an adverse credibility ruling”. Wang, 569
3 Case: 11-60570 Document: 00511918473 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2012No. 11-60570

F.3d at 538 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Accordingly, the adverse credibility dete r m i n a tion is supported by substantial evidence. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538, 540. Next, Yuan notes that she has not had an opportunity to testify about her fear of future persecution due to having two children born in the United States (one of which was born after her testimony b e f o r e th e IJ). “Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require an initial showing of substantial prejudice.” Bolvito v. Mukasey , 527 F.3d 428, 438 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation mark s o m itted). Because Yuan fails to explain how the additional testimony would have altered the adverse credibility determinatio n or otherwise show that it would have affected the outcome of the proceeding, her contention lacks merit. See id. DENIED.

4 Case: 11-60570 Document: 00511918473 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/12/2012