FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YINGHUI ZHANG, No. 07-74385
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-859-358
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Yinghui Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on the IJ’s demeanor finding, and based on the discrepancy between Zhang’s
asylum application and testimony regarding the police’s motivations for
persecuting him, the inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim. See Sing-Kaur v.
INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (courts “give special deference to a
credibility determination that is based on demeanor”) (citation and internal
quotation omitted); Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007)
(inconsistencies regarding the event that spurred the persecutors to threaten
petitioner go to the heart of the claim and are not trivial). In the absence of
credible evidence, Zhang has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding
of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Zhang’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74385
Zhang v. Holder
Combined Opinion