Chen

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BEIGUANG CHEN, No. 08-70043

Petitioner, Agency No. A098-956-205

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2012 Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Beiguang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an

immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny

Chen’s petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.

At his credible fear interview, Chen answered “no” when asked if he “ever had any

problem with police…

MEMORANDUM *

Beiguang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny Chen’s petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. At his credible fear interview, Chen answered “no” when asked if he “ever had any problem with police and/or other governmental authorities in China.” Chen’s answer directly contradicts his later testimony that police and local officials threatened him with fines, confiscated his personal property, and forced his wife to have an abortion. The inconsistency between Chen’s statement at his initial interview and his later testimony is more than trivial. Under the Real ID Act, the IJ and BIA were permitted to rely on that inconsistency in finding Chen not credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043-44 (9th Cir.2010).

For the first time at oral argument, Chen’s counsel argued that the IJ denied Chen an opportunity to explain the inconsistency, and that the IJ’s and BIA’s…

dissenting in part:

I concur in Part 1 of the panel’s disposition. Because I would grant Chen’s petition with regard to his CAT claim, I respectfully dissent from Part 2.

The BIA did not give any reasons for denying Chen’s CAT claim. It made only the conclusory statement that Chen had “not presented any persuasive arguments” for reversing the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. In turn, none of the IJ’s reasons for denying CAT relief indicate that the IJ gave any consideration to the country report in the record. Nor did the BIA or the IJ make a “general statement that [they] considered all the evidence before [them].” See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir.2011).

The majority concludes that the Country Report in the record “contains no probative evidence” regarding Chen’s CAT claim. I disagree. The State Department’s 2005 Country Report on Human Rights Practices documents the following country conditions relevant to Chen’s testimony that he feared forced sterilization and imprisonment upon return to China:

Because nothing in the record indicates that either the BIA or the IJ gave “reasoned consideration to [this probative] evidence,” Cole, 659 F.3d at 772 , “the proper course…