Opinion
14-73063
11-18-2022
LIPING ZHAO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 15, 2022
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A200-253-725
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Liping Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her applications 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 agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under 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 inconsistencies regarding her second pregnancy, her third pregnancy, and her work history. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020) (failure to rehabilitate testimony with sufficient corroborating evidence). Zhao's explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Zhao's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Zhao's claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Zhao does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured in China. See id. at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[*] 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).