Qui Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 582 F. App'x 322 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 13-60831      Document: 00512766809         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/12/2014
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-60831
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 12, 2014
    QUI CHEN, also known as Qiu Chen,
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Petitioner
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A200 904 111
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Qui Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
    by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding a decision of the
    immigration judge (“IJ”) finding him removable and denying his requested
    forms of relief. The IJ found that Chen was not credible and that he had
    therefore failed to establish his claim for asylum and statutory withholding of
    removal. The IJ determined that, even if Chen had been completely credible,
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 13-60831    Document: 00512766809      Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/12/2014
    No. 13-60831
    he had not established an entitlement to relief. The IJ also concluded that
    Chen was not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
    The BIA agreed with the IJ’s credibility determination, and it dismissed Chen’s
    appeal.
    Chen challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.        He also
    attacks the IJ’s determination that he was not entitled to relief even if his
    testimony were deemed credible. Because the BIA did not adopt the latter
    rationale for denying Chen’s application, we need not consider his arguments
    in that regard. See Yang v. Holder, 
    664 F.3d 580
    , 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011).
    On a petition for review, we consider only the BIA’s decision, “unless the
    IJ’s decision has some impact on the BIA’s decision.” Wang v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 531
    , 536 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, because the BIA upheld the IJ’s decision based
    on the latter’s credibility determination, which it determined to be not clearly
    erroneous and dispositive, we may review the decisions of both the BIA and
    the IJ. See id.; Efe v. Ashcroft, 
    293 F.3d 899
    , 903 (5th Cir. 2002).
    An immigration court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial
    evidence. Wang, 
    569 F.3d at 536
    . We may not reverse an immigration court’s
    factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable
    factfinder could conclude against it.” 
    Id. at 537
    . Among the findings of fact
    that we review for substantial evidence is the conclusion that an alien is not
    eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the CAT. Zhang v.
    Gonzales, 
    432 F.3d 339
    , 344 (5th Cir. 2005). It is the factfinder’s duty to make
    determinations based on the credibility of witnesses, and we cannot substitute
    our judgment for that of the BIA or IJ with respect to factual findings based on
    credibility determinations. Chun v. I.N.S., 
    40 F.3d 76
    , 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (per
    curiam).    However, an adverse credibility determination still must be
    2
    Case: 13-60831      Document: 00512766809    Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/12/2014
    No. 13-60831
    supported “by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record.” Zhang,
    432 F.3d at 344.
    Chen’s contention that his lack of knowledge of the legal age for marriage
    is not central to his claim is unavailing, as the agency is permitted to make an
    adverse credibility determination “without regard to whether an inconsistency,
    inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b)(1)(B)(iii).    Our review of the record shows that the BIA’s
    determination that Chen gave conflicting testimony regarding his wedding
    date is supported by substantial evidence. Chen’s testimony that he sustained
    a wrist fracture when beaten at a police station is in conflict with his statement
    in a credible fear interview that his bone was not broken. Further, to the
    extent that Chen testified that his child was seven to eight weeks old in certain
    photographs, the IJ’s implicit determination that the child was older, and that
    Chen’s testimony was therefore not credible, is supported by substantial
    evidence.
    Finally, Chen argues that the IJ erred in determining that he was not
    credible with regard to his testimony about escaping from the police station.
    Even if we accept Chen’s argument on this specific point, the totality of the
    circumstances does not compel a finding that Chen was credible, and
    accordingly we will not disturb the agency’s overall adverse credibility
    determination. See Wang, 
    569 F.3d at 537-39
    .
    Given the adverse credibility determination, Chen did not demonstrate
    that he was entitled to asylum or statutory withholding of removal. See Zhang,
    432 F.3d at 345. Chen has not challenged the denial of his request for relief
    under the CAT. He has therefore abandoned that claim. See Thuri v. Ashcroft,
    
    380 F.3d 788
    , 793 (5th Cir. 2004).
    In view of the foregoing, Chen’s petition for review is DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-60831

Citation Numbers: 582 F. App'x 322

Filed Date: 9/12/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023