Dong Liu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 470 F. App'x 662 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONG ZHI LIU, No. 10-70448
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-462-817
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Dong Zhi Liu, 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 and withholding of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Liu claims that he and his wife suffered past mistreatment, and that he also
fears forced sterilization for violating family planning laws. Even if Liu timely
filed his asylum application, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Liu’s original asylum
application and his household registration regarding his wife’s name and date of
birth. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the
heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it
doubtless is of great weight.”). The record does not compel acceptance of Liu’s
explanations. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We lack
jurisdiction to consider Liu’s new argument that he did not have an opportunity to
correct his wife’s name and date of birth in his asylum interview, because he failed
to exhaust this contention below. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319
(9th Cir. 2006) (no jurisdiction over issues raised for the first time on appeal to this
court).
2 10-70448
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Liu’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-70448