FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIN ZHU, No. 12-72206
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-292-974
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bin Zhu, 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”). 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, Zhu’s request for oral
argument is denied.
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 BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Zhu’s admitted lies under oath about his sisters, internally inconsistent
testimony regarding notarial documents he submitted, and inconsistencies between
his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his fine. See id. at 1048
(agency’s adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of
circumstances); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (lies to U.S.
officials and judges are “generally sufficient to support an adverse credibility
determination”). Zhu’s explanations did not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible
testimony, Zhu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Zhu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found not
credible, and Zhu does not point to any evidence that otherwise compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to
China, his CAT claim also fails. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
2 12-72206
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72206