NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEN CHENG CHEN,                                 No.    15-72613

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-829-624

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Fen Cheng Chen, 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 applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility


      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 

,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistent testimony regarding Chen’s travel to the United States. See

(adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of

circumstances”). Chen’s explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion. See

Lata v. INS, 

, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible

testimony, in this case, we deny the petition for review as to Chen’s asylum and

withholding of removal claims.

      In light of this disposition, we do not reach Chen’s arguments concerning the

merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 

, 538 (9th Cir. 2004)

(courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results

they reach).

      As stated in the court’s September 10, 2015 order, the temporary stay of

removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                   15-72613