Zhucheng Gao v. Loretta E. Lynch , 633 F. App'x 449 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
MAR 21 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHUCHENG GAO, No. 13-72021
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-968-749
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Zhucheng Gao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum 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).
withholding of removal, and denying his motion to remand. 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-1040 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on Gao’s admitted lies and omissions about his residence and employment, and
inconsistent account of his U.S. church attendance. See Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d
1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration
authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”); Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). We reject Gao’s contentions that the IJ engaged in improper
conjecture or was biased. In the absence of credible testimony, Gao’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
As to the motion to remand, Gao does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive
finding that he failed to present evidence that was previously unavailable. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in
a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
2
13-72021
The 60-day stay of proceedings granted on December 1, 2015, has expired.
Respondent's motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3
13-72021