Wangyu Guan v. Holder , 427 F. App'x 606 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WANGYU GUAN; LIHUA TANG, No. 05-77252
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A075-681-156
A075-681-166
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Wangyu Guan and Lihua Tang, natives and citizens of China, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and de
novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th
Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon petitioners’ conflicting testimony regarding the date of Guan’s
abortion. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of
credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156. In light of our conclusion, we need not address
petitioners’ contention that their application is timely or that the IJ selectively
quoted from the country conditions reports.
Petitioners did not advance an argument in support of their CAT claim in
their opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Petitioners’ contention that they were denied due process because the IJ did
not act as a neutral fact-finder in questioning the witnesses fails because the IJ is
permitted to question witnesses. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1072
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 05-77252