FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHI QIANG ZHAO, No. 06-74150
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-658-680
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Zhi Qiang Zhao, 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
*
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).
KN/Research
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Don v. Gonzales, 476
F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding
because Zhao’s testimony regarding an alleged list of corrupt government officials
was confusing and unresponsive, see Shrestha v. Holder, 2010 WL 10982, *8 (9th
Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) (unresponsiveness is one of the circumstances the Real ID Act
entitles the agency to consider in assessing credibility), and he failed to corroborate
his testimony by producing the list, which he testified his friend possessed, see 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“[n]o court shall reverse a
determination made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of
corroborating evidence . . . unless the court finds . . . a reasonable trier of fact is
compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable”); Aden v.
Holder, 2009 WL 4877951, *3 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2009) (an applicant can be
faulted for failing to provide corroboration when he “could reasonably obtain it.”).
In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao failed to establish he is eligible for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
KN/Research 2 06-74150
Because Zhao’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if he returned to China, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
KN/Research 3 06-74150