Yinxia Zhang v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YINXIA ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71792
Agency No. A088-128-992
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yinxia Zhang, 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 application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-71792
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Zhang’s misrepresentations about her place of residence, inconsistencies
between Zhang’s testimony and that of her witness regarding church services and
Zhang’s church attendance, and Zhang’s initial failure to testify about being fired
from her job in China. See id., 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Further, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zhang’s corroborative evidence does
not independently support her claim for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Zhang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the
conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured with the consent or

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-71792
acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --