FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DESHAN ZHANG, No. 11-72844
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-066-927
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 20, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Deshan Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s adverse credibility finding and other factual findings underlying the
determination that an applicant is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT protection. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010); Zhou v.
Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 2006). For due process claims, we review
questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency’s adverse credibility decision was reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence given the totality of the circumstances, including the
implausibility of some of Zhang’s statements, non-trivial inconsistencies within
Zhang’s testimony and between his testimony and his written statement, and
Zhang’s failure to provide a corroborating declaration from his wife. See Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-42, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2010).
In the absence of credible testimony, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011);
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (holding that substantial evidence supported denial of
withholding of removal because, absent the petitioner’s discredited testimony, no
objective evidence established a clear probability of persecution); see also Farah v.
2 11-72844
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Zhang’s CAT claim also fails
because he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than not that he
will be tortured if returned to China. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.
Zhang argues that, by affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility decision, instead
of remanding, the BIA denied him a full and fair hearing, violating his due process
rights. Because the BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility ruling, this
argument has no merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72844