Liping Zhao v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIPING ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73063
Agency No. A200-253-725
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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).
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73063
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.

-- 2 of 2 --