NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUHAI ZHANG, No. 15-72175
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-323-254
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge.***
Yuhai Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the decision of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum and withholding of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
removal. The IJ found that Zhang lacked credibility as a witness, citing
inconsistent testimony and a lack of candor, and that he failed to provide
reasonably available evidence to corroborate his claims.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See
Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2016). Zhang offered
inconsistent testimony on several topics, including when he and his wife first
joined a house church in China and his alleged abuse while in custody there, and
he repeatedly failed to persuasively reconcile his testimonial inconsistencies when
the IJ invited him to do so.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zhang failed
to provide corroborating evidence from his daughter, who had personal knowledge
of the basis for his claims and could have either testified before the IJ or provided a
written statement. Zhang argues that the IJ denied him notice of the need for
corroborating evidence and an opportunity to present it, but Zhang was not entitled
to such notice and opportunity because his testimony was not “otherwise credible.”
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011); Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861
F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). And in any event, the IJ gave Zhang sufficient
notice of the need for corroborating evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
2