Chunyu Hu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNYU HU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70125
Agency No. A088-112-410
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA Circuit Judges.
Chunyu Hu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70125 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the Real ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on an omission from his written application of any mention that police were
looking for him at his home, and on the IJ’s negative assessment of Hu’s
demeanor. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011)
(omission cast doubt on petitioner’s credibility); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d
1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special deference” given to credibility determinations
based on demeanor). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Hu’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Hu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not credible
and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not he will
face torture if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --