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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINHANG ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71861
Agency No. A087-813-968
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jinhang Zhang, native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his 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
JUN 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-71861
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 the filing of two separate asylum applications with inconsistent accounts
of the circumstances leading to Zhang becoming Christian, which he alleged as the
basis for the harm he suffered. See id. at 1046-47 (although inconsistencies no
longer need to “go to the heart” of the claim under the REAL ID Act, where an
inconsistency does go to the heart of the claim, “it doubtless is of great weight”).
Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We do not consider the materials Zhang references in
his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 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).
Zhang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Zhang does not point to any evidence that compels

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-71861
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to
China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --