Da Yu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 474 F. App'x 588 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DA JIN YU, No. 09-72315
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-473-843
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Da Jin Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancy between Yu’s testimony and his declaration regarding
when he was first introduced to Falun Gong, the lack of detail in Yu’s testimony
regarding the friend who he claimed introduced him to Falun Gong, and the
implausibility of the time line of events. See id. at 1040, 1046-47 (lack of detail is
an appropriate factor to consider under the REAL ID Act, as well as the ability to
consistently describe the events underlying the petitioner’s fear); Don v. Gonzales,
476 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007) (the implausibility of the petitioner’s story may
undermine credibility). In the absence of credible testimony, Yu’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review Yu’s unexhausted contention that he is
eligible for CAT relief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 09-72315