Jing Dong Zhao v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JING DONG ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70662
BIA No. A097-886-093
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jing Dong 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70662 2
for substantial evidence factual findings, including adverse credibility findings,
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and review de novo due
process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Zhao’s inconsistent testimony regarding the level of government
surveillance she experienced, the implausibility of her obtaining permission to
travel to Europe while on bail, and her subsequent voluntary return to China. See
id. at 1043 (inconsistencies about events leading up to petitioner’s departure went
to the heart of the claim); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1999);
Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicant’s voluntary
returns to home country supported adverse credibility determination). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Zhao’s documents did not counteract
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1165
(9th Cir. 2000) (an IJ may reject documentary evidence for specific, cogent reasons
that bear a legitimate nexus to that rejection). 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70662 3
We reject Zhao’s contention that the agency violated her due process rights
by relying on the expert testimony of the forensic documents examiner. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --