FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHIYONG DING, No. 06-71630
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-669-916
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Zhiyong Ding requests review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and the
BIA’s dismissal of Ding’s application.1 See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1044–45 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). Ding provided
inconsistent testimony regarding how he obtained his visa to enter the United
States. He also testified inconsistently about his trip to Italy, purportedly to meet
with friends involved in the democracy movement in China. Finally, Ding gave
incongruent, and somewhat evasive, testimony about the harm he suffered as a
result of his involvement with the democratic movement.
The inconsistencies within Ding’s testimony and his failure to corroborate
his testimony constitute substantial evidence to uphold the denial of Ding’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.
2000).
PETITION DENIED.
1
Although the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and cited Matter of Burbano,
20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), it also provided its own review of the
evidence. Our review therefore encompasses both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decision.
Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1239–40 (9th Cir. 2010).
2