Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mei Chang Ou v. Eric H. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


January 19, 2011

MEI CHANG OU, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

Agency No. A098-385-950 On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM*fn1

Submitted January 10, 2011*fn2

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Mei Chang Ou, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 8 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. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The agency found Ou not credible for several reasons, including Ou's demeanor, as well as inconsistencies between Ou's testimony at her merits hearing and asylum interview. In light of these findings, substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1040-44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the Real ID Act's "totality of the circumstances"). Additionally, we reject Ou's contention that the inconsistencies were the result of an unqualified hearing translator because Ou failed to identify any instances of incorrect translation. See Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1994). In the absence of credible testimony, Ou's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Ou's CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and she points to no other evidence the agency should have considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.