FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUEMING ZENG, No. 11-70670
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-111-992
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2012**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Yueming Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for
review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
Zeng’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we
deny the petition for review.1
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on inconsistencies in Zeng’s testimony and between her testimony and
documentary evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th Cir.
2010). Moreover, the record does not compel a finding that Zeng provided
sufficient corroboration for her claim. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046
(9th Cir. 2009). The record also does not compel the conclusion that further
corroboration was not reasonably obtainable. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047-48.
The BIA found that Zeng failed to show that she was subjected to
persecution on account of a protected ground. Therefore, the agency properly
denied Zeng’s claim for asylum. See id. at 1048. Because Zeng cannot meet the
burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the higher burden for
withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir.
2006). Moreover, because Zeng’s claim for CAT protection is based on the same
discredited evidence that she relied upon for her asylum claim, substantial evidence
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts underlying this appeal, we
do not recount the facts here.
2
supports the denial of her CAT claim. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject Zeng’s argument that the agency failed to consider the State
Department’s Country Report in making its decision. The BIA and IJ’s opinions
indicate that they considered all relevant evidence, and the record does not suggest
that they failed to consider the country report. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457
F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006).
Any remaining arguments are meritless.
PETITION DENIED.
3