Case Name: QIANG 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: 2011-03-21
Citations: 422 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 08-70916
Parties: QIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
QIANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 21, 2011.
David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hurley, OIL, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Qiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based upon the omission from his asylum application and declaration of the tip Chen received that the police were investigating his family, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004) (omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of the petitioner's claim support an adverse credibility finding), and his failure to provide reasonable explanations for the omission, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on Chen's vague testimony regarding his Christian practices in the United States. See Mejia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 724 (9th Cir.1997) (vague testimony regarding religious affiliation supported adverse credibility determination). In the absence of credible testimony, Chen's claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in an underground Christian church fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Chen failed to establish that the Chinese government "forced" his fiancee to have an abortion. Cf. Ding v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Chen's claims for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposilion is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.