IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60889

Summary Calendar

MIN YE,

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. A088-367-201

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Min Ye, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). Ye has abandoned any challenge to the denial of relief under the

CAT by failing to adequately argue the issue in his petition for review. See

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 29, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-60889 Document: 00511585922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2011
No. 10-60889

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Ye sought immigration relief based on his alleged persecution or fear of

persecution on account of his violation of China’s family planning policy and his

support of Falun Gong. The IJ denied relief after finding that Ye was not a

credible witness, and the BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,

holding that Ye had failed to meet his burden of proving eligibility for any relief

sought. Ye challenges those negative credibility determinations.

This court reviews an immigration court’s findings of fact for substantial

evidence. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). “‘[A]n IJ may rely

on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination

as long as the ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant

is not credible.’” Id. at 538 (quoting Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.

2008)). This court will “defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility determination

unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable

fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The record supports the IJ’s determination that Ye’s testimony was in

some respects internally inconsistent, that the testimony conflicted in some

respects with Ye’s prior statements, and that Ye had failed to mention in prior

statements his 12-hour detention and beating as a result of his support of Falun

Gong. To the extent that Ye argues that his corroborating evidence was not

properly considered, the BIA observed that the IJ properly considered the

corroborating documents Ye submitted but observed that his submissions did

not ameliorate Ye’s failure to present “‘otherwise credible testimony.’” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(i)(B)(ii). The IJ found the corroborating evidence insufficient to meet

Ye’s burden given that his testimony was “incredible, unreliable, and he rapidly

changes it from one question and answer to the next.” 

2

Case: 10-60889 Document: 00511585922 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2011
No. 10-60889

We will not substitute our judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with respect

to factual findings based on credibility determinations. See Wang, 569 F.3d at

537. Substantial evidence supports the determination of the IJ and BIA denying

Ye’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. See id. at 536-37. In

light of the inconsistencies and omissions in Ye’s testimony and statements, the

evidence is not “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude

against it.” Id. at 537.

Ye argues that the IJ was hostile and failed to act as a neutral and

impartial adjudicator. The Due Process Clause entitles aliens to due process in

immigration proceedings. See Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 302 (5th

Cir. 2002). Although the absence of a neutral arbiter can be the basis for a due

process claim, Wang, 569 F.3d at 540, Ye has not demonstrated such a violation. 

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination “cannot be disturbed simply because

[Ye] believes the IJ was unfriendly or even hostile.” Id. at 540-41. 

PETITION DENIED.

3

Case: 10-60889 Document: 00511585922 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/29/2011