NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINYAO ZHAO, No. 15-72110
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-444-070
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, OWENS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Jinyao Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum and
*
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).
withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny Zhao’s petition.
1. Zhao first argues that the BIA erred in upholding the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding. “We review factual findings, including
adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972
F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). “The agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive
unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Id. (quoting Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.
2016)).
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on Zhao’s
lack of responsiveness and evasiveness in answering questions, and the fact that
Zhao’s testimony conflicted with the available documentary evidence. These
inconsistencies primarily related to the testimony concerning three events. First,
Zhao did not provide any records corroborating his claim that he was injured in a
bus accident which required hospitalization, an event which Zhao claims spurred
him to join a Christian church that was ultimately raided by Chinese police,
resulting in his arrest. Zhao explained that the hospital did not have any records
because the bus company paid for his treatment, which the IJ did not find
1
Zhao does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his application for protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
2
responsive or persuasive, and Zhao presented no other corroborating evidence of
the accident. Second, Zhao said his employer fired him immediately after his
arrest in January 2005, a claim which was contradicted by documents showing he
was employed through August 2006. The IJ found Zhao’s attempt to explain this
by stating that the company did not have accurate records because it changed
management in 2000 to be similarly unpersuasive. Third, Zhao claimed to have
“escaped” from China despite being under surveillance from Chinese authorities.
But Zhao later stated that he was able to travel to Beijing and interview at the
United States Embassy as part of the process of obtaining a travel passport and
visa, even though Chinese authorities were inspecting the papers of individuals
who had appointments at the embassy. When asked to explain how he made it into
the embassy despite being under surveillance, Zhao just said “[t]hat one I don’t
know.” Given these inconsistencies in the record, the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination is supported by substantial evidence.
2. Zhao next argues that the BIA erred by upholding the IJ’s finding that
Zhao failed to meet his burden to show that evidence corroborating his claims was
unavailable. Zhao contends that he was never “given an adequate opportunity to
explain why it was not reasonable for his family to obtain the additional requested
evidence.” “[W]e may not reverse the IJ’s and BIA's conclusion that” a petitioner
should have been able to obtain corroborative evidence “unless ‘a reasonable trier
3
of fact is compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.’”
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)).
Zhao’s claim that he was not given an opportunity to explain why
corroborating evidence was unavailable is not supported by the record. Zhao was
able to submit documents attempting to address this issue, and the IJ gave him a
further opportunity to submit additional evidence before rendering a final decision
on the merits. Zhao has failed to demonstrate that the record compels the
conclusion that the IJ erred by not providing him the opportunity to submit
corroborating evidence or explain why such evidence was not available.
The petition for review is DENIED.
4