NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAN ZHANG, No. 14-72488
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-183-932
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nan Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction 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. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we
remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because,
even if credible, Zhang failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
As to asylum and withholding of removal, the agency found Zhang not
credible because of Zhang’s vague and implausible testimony, and her demeanor.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011)
(adverse credibility finding not supported under the totality of the circumstances,
and noting that “questioning an applicant on [her] knowledge of religious doctrine
to determine if [s]he is a true believer is not an appropriate method of determining
eligibility for asylum.”); see also Zhi, 751 F.3d at 1093 (IJ impermissibly based
adverse credibility finding on “speculation and conjecture”); Shrestha v. Holder,
2 14-72488
590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting “the requirement that an IJ not cherry
pick solely facts favoring an adverse credibility determination while ignoring facts
that undermine that result”). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Zhang’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims, and remand these claims to the agency
for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537
U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089,
1095 (9th Cir. 2009).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 14-72488