Case Name: YANJUAN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 388 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 07-74642
Parties: YANJUAN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
YANJUAN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74642.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 19, 2010.
Yanjuan Chen, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yanjuan Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition.
The BIA found Chen not credible for several reasons, including concerns with Chen's demeanor, inconsistencies within Chen's testimony about her entry into the United States, and an inconsistency between her testimony and asylum application regarding whether authorities summoned her after they released her from detention. In light of these findings, substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act's "totality of the circumstances").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.