The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-71921•Qiuguang Zhu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
13-71921Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSep 1, 2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIUGUANG ZHU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71921
Agency No. A099-420-511
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Qiuguang Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
for substantial evidence the 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 BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding when Zhu decided to come to the United States,
and an omission from his application and initial declaration of being beaten and
detained by family planning officials. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under totality of the circumstances). Zhu’s explanations do not compel
a contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011)
(agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). We reject Zhu’s
contention that the IJ engaged in speculation. In the absence of credible testimony,
Zhu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71921 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.