Deling Zhao v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELING ZHAO, No. 15-70286
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-692-876
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Deling Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies regarding Zhao’s house church attendance and the
name of the doctor who treated her in 2007, the IJ’s observations about Zhao
demeanor while testifying about the name of the doctor, and her evasive testimony
regarding her attempts to contact Chen. See id. at 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving special deference to findings
based on demeanor). Zhao’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Huang, 744 F.3d at 1156.
Finally, Zhao’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Zhao does not point to any other evidence that
compels the conclusion 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-70286