FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANWEI ZHANG, No. 13-70587
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-196-605
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jianwei Zhang, 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). Thus, we deny Zhang’s
request for oral argument.
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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies in the record regarding Zhang’s work and educational
history, whose work unit Zhang and his wife visited to apply for a birth permit, and
the inconsistency regarding when Zhang’s wife was dismissed from work. See id.
at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). Zhang’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of this conclusion, we
reject Zhang’s contention that his testimony alone was sufficient to meet his
burden of proof.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Zhang failed to
corroborate his claim. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011)
(evidence did not compel the conclusion that petitioner met his burden of proof).
We reject Zhang’s contention that corroboration should not be required because he
did not have it and could not obtain it. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047 (explaining
under the REAL ID Act the court may not reverse the agency’s finding that
2 13-70587
petitioner should corroborate his claims unless “a reasonable trier of fact is
compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable”).
Thus, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, Zhang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony that the agency found not credible, and Zhang does not point to any
other evidence in the record that compels the finding it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese
government. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70587