### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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

a p p e a l o f the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his application fo r asylum, withholding of removal, and relief und e r 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 pet i t i on for review. See 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 August 29, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t 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: 10-60889 Document: 00511585922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2011No. 10-60889

Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 3 24 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 198 7). Ye sought immigration relief based on hi s al l e g ed 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 r e l i e f a f t er 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 th at an asylum applicant is not credible.’” Id. at 538 (quoting Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)). This court w i ll “defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is p l a i n that no reasonable fa c t-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record supports the IJ’s determination th at Ye ’s testimony was in

some respects int ernally 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 B IA observed that the IJ properly considered the

c orroborating documents Ye submitted but observed that his submission s di d 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: 08/29/2011No. 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 a p plication 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 th a t no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 537. Ye a r gues 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 O je da-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