FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOGUANG ZHAO, No. 11-73829
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-311-782
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Xiaoguang Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on the inconsistencies between Zhao’s testimony at his hearing and his testimony
before an asylum officer regarding the circumstances of his wife’s birth control,
the injuries he sustained during an alleged beating, and his explanations for why he
said he only had one child when he applied for a visa. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508
F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility finding was supported based
on inconsistencies regarding the details of petitioner’s abduction, especially where
her entire claim centered around only two events); see also Kaur v. Gonzales, 418
F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding adverse credibility finding where
testimony lacked the requisite “ring of truth”). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on Zhao’s submission of birth
certificates for his children that contained false information. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID
Act’s “totality of circumstances” standard). Zhao’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the
2 11-73829
absence of credible testimony, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Zhao’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that
shows it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73829