Opinion
16-70227
03-09-2022
LEI ZHANG, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 7, 2022 Pasadena, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A089-893-702
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
Lei Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination, which the BIA affirmed. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). The omission in Zhang's declaration about an attempted "sit-in protest" supports the adverse credibility determination because Zhang's efforts to petition were the claimed nexus for his alleged persecution based on political opinion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that it is "not unreasonable for the IJ to be suspicious" when an applicant later introduces incidents "which would have added great weight to his claim of political persecution"). Likewise, Zhang's inconsistent and contradictory testimony about his mother's death certificate supports the adverse credibility finding. The IJ was not required to accept Zhang's explanations for the inconsistencies, see id., nor to give substantial weight to the letter from Zhang's sister-in-law, see Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020). Absent his testimony, Zhang did not establish a reasonable likelihood of persecution if removed to China, and thus failed to show eligibility for asylum, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010), or withholding of removal, Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).
2. Substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief. In the absence of his testimony, Zhang did not show a likelihood of torture if removed to China. See Yali Wang, 861 F.3d at 1009.
PETITION DENIED.