FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 12 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONGCE ZHANG, No. 17-72746
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-190-433
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and LEE, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Rongce Zhang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
*
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 William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
dismissal of her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her
application for asylum,1 withholding of removal,2 and Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”)3 relief. We deny the petition.
The BIA’s determination that an alien is “not eligible for asylum must be
upheld if ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record.’” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.
Ed. 2d 38 (1992). “It can be reversed only if the evidence presented . . . was such
that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of
persecution existed.” Id.; see also Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). The same standard applies to adverse credibility determinations.
See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination that Zhang was not credible and
therefore concluded that she failed to meet her burden of showing that she had
suffered a forced abortion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). We have reviewed the
record and are satisfied that the adverse credibility determination was supported by
1
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).
2
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
3
United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No.
100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, implemented at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.
2
substantial evidence. The BIA pointed to inconsistencies regarding Zhang’s
claimed infertility as well as the omission from her asylum application of an
incident where she was physically restrained during the forced implantation of an
intrauterine device. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185–86 (9th Cir.
2016); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043–44. It also noted Zhang’s undetailed and
inconsistent testimony regarding her cousin in finding Zhang not credible. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040; see also Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964, 966
(9th Cir. 2014).4
Moreover, on this record, Zhang has failed to establish a clear probability of
persecution, as required for her withholding of removal claim. See Garcia v.
Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Additionally, the evidence in the record does not
compel a determination that it is more likely than not that Zhang would be tortured
in China. Thus, she is not entitled to CAT relief. Lianhua Jiang, 754 F.3d at
740–41; see also Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156–57.
Petition DENIED.
4
Because these grounds are “sufficient to support the . . . credibility finding,”
we need not and do not consider others. Lianhua Jiang, 754 F.3d at 738–39.
3