FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUIQING ZUO, No. 12-74238
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-121-084
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Huiqing Zuo, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
*
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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo due process challenges to
immigration decisions. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Zuo’s omission from his application and declaration that family planning
officials imprisoned him for approximately one month, and inconsistencies in
Zuo’s testimony regarding where he was when his wife was forced to have an IUD.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (omitted incidents of
arrest and mistreatment supported adverse credibility finding); Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1046-47 (in post-REAL ID act cases, an inconsistency need not go to the heart
of the claim, but when it does, it is “of great weight”). We reject Zuo’s contention
that the agency engaged in speculation or conjecture. In light of the supported
credibility findings described above, we reject Zuo’s due process contention
regarding translation problems. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). In the absence of
2 12-74238
credible testimony, Zuo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Zuo’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not
credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also
fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74238