N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
B IN CH E N, Pe titione r,
v. L O RE T T A E . L YNCH , Attor ne y G e ne r al, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-71367 Age n c y No. A087-807-593
M E M O RANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI , IKUT A and O W E NS , C i rc u it Judge s. The B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (B IA) c orre c tly a ffirm e d the im m igration judge ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. TheB IA provide d four justific a t ions for its de c ision. First, the B IA c onc l ude d tha

t the im m igration 

# FIL ED
OCT 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pa ge 2

judge ’ s finding tha

t C he n provide d inc onsiste nt a

nswe rs whe n a ske d a

b out how his wife proc ure d a doc um e n t from the fam i ly -pla

nning offic e wa s not c le arly
e rrone ous. Tha

t finding wa s supporte d by the re c ord. C he n origina l ly sa id tha t his wife se nt the villa ge c a d

re to re trie ve the doc um e nt. B ut, whe n pre sse d by the im m igration judge , C he n sa i d tha t his wife we nt with the

c a dre . In a ddition to
c onflic ting with his prior te stim ony , C he n’ s sta t e m e nt tha

t his wifevolunta

rily
we nt to thefam ily -pla

nning offic e is diffic ult to squa re with his c la im that his fam ily wa s hiding from

the fam ily -pla

nning offic i a ls. Se c ond, the B IA he ld tha

t the im m igrat ion judgedidn’ t c le arly e rr in finding that C he n ga v e c onflic ting a

nswe rs whe n a ske d

whe the r he wa s c onsiste ntly in hiding from

2003 to 2008. This finding wa s a lso supporte d by

the re c ord. C he n first sta te d tha t he wa s in hiding c onsta

n tly be twe e n 2003 a

nd 2008, but la

te r sa id that he som e tim e s we nt hom e during tha t pe riod. Third, C he n

sugge ste d tha

t his c hildre n atte nde d

sc h ool while the fam ily

wa s in hiding. The

B IA c orre c tly

a ffirm e d the im

m igration judge ’ s finding tha t this
a c c ount wa s both im

proba ble and inc onsiste nt with a le tte r from

C he n’ s wife
. Fourth, C he n fa ile d to m e ntion in his a pplic a tion for a sy lum that he ha d be e n in hiding from 2003 to 2008. The B IA wa s right to note

tha t this omission unde rm ine s C he n’ s c re d ibility , e spe c ia lly in light of his wife ’ s c l a im tha t thispa ge 3

e pisode of hiding wa s the re a s on tha t C he n le ft C hina
. The a dve rse c re d i bility de te rm ination wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Give n the a

bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , C he n c annot sa tisfy his burde n of proving that he is e ligiblefor a sy lum

or withholding of re

m ova l. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1058 (9th C ir. 2010). C he n’ s c la im unde r the C AT is ba se d on the sa m e te stim ony tha t the a ge n c y

found not c re dible . C he n doe sn’ t a rgue tha t a ny othe r obje c tive e v ide nc e e sta

blishe s tha

t he will be torture d

if he is re m ove d

to C hina
. Thus, theB IA’ s re

je c tion of C he n’ s c la im unde r the C AT wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Shre stha v. Holde r, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010).
PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.