FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUAN ZHU, No. 09-72713
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-801-709
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 4, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Xuan Zhu petitions this Court for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ decision denying her asylum application. The BIA concluded that Zhu
*
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).
was not credible. Because substantial evidence supports this finding, we deny her
petition.
When, as is the case here, “the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review
the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037,
1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, reversing only if “the
petitioner’s evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find
that he was not credible.” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). This case is not governed by the Real ID Act,
so our pre-Real ID Act precedents apply.
Zhu’s evidence does not meet the Kin standard. First, Zhu testified that she
did not attend church in San Francisco but later testified that she had in fact
attended church in that city. This inconsistency goes to the heart of her claim that
she was persecuted on account of being a Christian. Second, Zhu testified that she
had been in hiding from the Chinese family planning officials at the same time she
was making daily reports to the Chinese police. This inconsistency also goes to the
heart of her claim. Finally, Zhu testified inconsistently about when she was first
2
introduced to Christianity, which goes to the heart of her claim. See Don v.
Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-743 (9th Cir. 2007).
Because these inconsistencies amount to substantial evidence supporting the
IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we need not address the other inconsistencies the IJ
relied upon. In addition, because Zhu failed to carry her burden to establish her
eligibility for asylum, we must necessarily affirm the BIA’s denial of her
application for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Similarly, because Zhu’s claim for relief under the
Convention Against Torture is based on the same testimony that the IJ found to be
not credible, we affirm the BIA’s denial of that relief as well. See id. at 1157.
PETITION DENIED.
3