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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74452
Agency No. A099-733-461
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Li 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 jurisdiction under
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-74452
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). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on omissions from Zhang’s declaration and direct testimony as to the harm
she experienced in China and inconsistencies in her testimony as to her first trip to
the United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Zhang’s corroborative evidence
did not otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient
to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony, in this case, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Zhang’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does
not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Zhang would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-74452
China. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --