Jian Zhou v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN XIN ZHOU, No. 16-72693
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-635-704
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jian Xin Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the
REAL ID Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2011). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Zhou failed to
provide sufficient corroborative evidence, along with his credible testimony and
the rest of the evidence in the record, to meet his burden of proof to establish
eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (“Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should
provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence
must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot
reasonably obtain the evidence.”); Ren, 648 F.3d at 1094 (corroborative evidence
consisting of “two short and vague letters,” along with the rest of the evidence in
the record, did not compel the conclusion that the petitioner had met his burden of
proof). Thus, Zhou’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Zhou failed to show it is more likely than not he 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). We reject Zhou’s contention that
the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its legal analysis. See
2 16-72693
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency adequately
considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
We do not consider the country conditions reports Zhou references in his
opening brief that are not a part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-72693