Jiedi Feng v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 485 F. App'x 261 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIEDI FENG, No. 10-71886
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-359-602
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jiedi Feng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for
review. Because Feng filed her application before May 11, 2005, we apply
pre-REAL ID Act rules. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 n.2 (9th Cir.
2011).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Feng’s testimony and her written statement
regarding where she lived and her interactions with the police during the time
between her arrest and her departure from China. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d
1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies regarding events leading up to
petitioner’s departure went to the heart of claim and supported adverse credibility
finding). Feng’s contention that she was not given an opportunity to explain the
inconsistency is belied by the record, and her explanation does not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Feng’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Feng’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible and she points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than not
2 10-71886
she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-
57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71886