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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUCHAO ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72945
Agency No. A201-295-496
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yuchao Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72945
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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhang’s contentions as to error in the
agency’s adverse credibility determination that he raises for the first time in his
opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies as to the details of Zhang’s detention, the date of his
arrest, when his family’s land was confiscated, where Zhang lived and worked
following his detention, and when Zhang contacted the authorities to contest the
confiscation of his family’s land. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d 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). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony in this case,
Zhang’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --