NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JIE LI ZHEN, No. 12-71868
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-459-745
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Jie Li Zhen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination,
based on the inconsistencies between Zhen’s testimony and his asylum application
regarding whether he was ever arrested, detained, and beaten by the police in
China. See id. at 1046-47 (“Although insistencies no longer need to go to the heart
of the petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it
doubtless is of great weight.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhen’s
contentions made for the first time in his opening brief that he may not have been
familiar with the content of his declaration or that it may have been mis-translated.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to consider issues that have not been exhausted administratively). In
the absence of credible testimony, Zhen’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Zhen’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
BIA found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion
2 12-71868
that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71868