FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YING ZHANG, a.k.a. Chen Chiu Hua, No. 12-72579
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-448-045
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ying Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on
inconsistencies within Zhang’s testimony, and between Zhang’s testimony and the
testimony of government witnesses, regarding whether Zhang fears religious
persecution in China. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010).
The IJ did not err in crediting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer Charles
Lee’s testimony over Zhang’s testimony, particularly in light of Zhang’s evolving
explanations for the inconsistency. See id. at 1057 (where testimony conflicts, it is
the responsibility of the fact-finder to “decid[e] which version of the events is
true.”). Zhang’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Finally, we reject
Zhang’s contention that the IJ did not provide her an opportunity to explain any
inconsistencies with Agent Lee’s testimony and her contention that the BIA erred
by not remanding to the IJ for further fact-finding. In the absence of credible
testimony, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-72579
Because Zhang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more
likely than not she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72579