Case Name: SHAN KUN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-31
Citations: 239 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 06-72777
Parties: SHAN KUN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 401–403

Head Matter:
SHAN KUN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72777.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 27, 2007.
Filed Aug. 31, 2007.
Kai De Graaf, New York, NY, Jeffrey B. Kahan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Jeffrey B. Kahan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Shan Kun Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision, affirming the Immigration Judge's ("U") order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Where, as here, the BIA states that it is reviewing for clear error, this Court looks to the IJ's decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA's conclusion. See Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review in part, and dismiss in part.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's credibility finding based upon a discrepancy as to when Chen was followed by the police, because the discrepancy pertained to the arrest and detention on which Chen predicated his asylum claim. See id.; see also Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).
The IJ further found that Chen's testimony was faltering and unsure. In light of the "special deference" applied to such demeanor findings, we conclude that substantial evidence supports this credibility finding. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1999).
While Chen claims that he was denied due process as a result of faulty translation, he has failed to demonstrate "that a better translation likely would have made a difference in the outcome." See Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 824, 830 (9th Cir.2002).
In the absence of credible testimony, Chen failed to establish eligibility for either asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Chen's CAT claim, because he failed to exhaust the claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.