Heping Zhang v. Loretta E. Lynch , 668 F. App'x 304 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEPING ZHANG, No. 14-72179
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-126-793
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Heping Zhang, 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 decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de
novo due process contentions, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Zhang’s testimony and documentary evidence as
to the date Chinese authorities allegedly demolished his home and as to his house
address. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhang’s due process contention concerning
corroboration because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-72179