Chunxia Zhao v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNXIA ZHAO, No. 13-74091
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-967-284
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Chunxia Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
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).
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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Zhao references in her opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Zhao’s testimony and between her testimony and
documentary evidence concerning her church attendance, why she was not
baptized in China, and where family planning officials arrested her. See Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Zhao’s contentions 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, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Zhao’s CAT claim fails because it is based in part on testimony the BIA
found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence in the record that
2 13-74091
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829,
835 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]o reverse the BIA with respect to a finding of fact, the
evidence must compel a different conclusion from the one reached by the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74091