Qun Chen; Feng Cai v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUN CHEN; FENG CAI,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73824
Agency Nos. A089-561-340
A089-561-341
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Qun Chen and Feng Cai, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the 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 for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on findings that it was implausible Chen did not know or remember the
names of the other church members who were beaten, the omission from her
declaration of the fact that the police visited her home after she was released from
detention, and the inconsistency between her testimony and the documentary
evidence regarding when she was released from detention. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination was supported by the “totality of the circumstances”).
The record does not compel acceptance of Chen’s explanations. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and they point to no other evidence showing it is more likely
12-73824 2

-- 2 of 3 --

than not they will be tortured if returned to China, their CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73824 3

-- 3 of 3 --