Yuhua Zhang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUHUA ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73577
Agency No. A089-884-717
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,***
District Judge.
Yuhua Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an order of an
* 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).
*** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The agency provided “specific and cogent” reasons for finding
Zhang’s testimony lacked credibility. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185
(9th Cir. 2016); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Zhang’s testimony
contained numerous discrepancies, including inconsistencies about the date of his
initial detention in 1994, whether his wife was subjected to a forced abortion or a
forced sterilization, whether he paid a fine to family planning officials, why his
land certificate was taken away, whether he sought medical treatment after being
beaten by police, and when and how he began practicing Christianity. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the
applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility
finding.”); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“Inconsistencies that form the basis of an adverse credibility determination no
longer need to go to the heart of a petitioner’s claim . . . .”).
2. The IJ properly concluded that the corroborating evidence that Zhang
submitted, an unsigned form letter from Zhang’s church in the U.S. and several
U.S. State Department reports on religious freedom in China, was insufficient to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
support his claims. Without more, “generalized evidence of violence . . . is
insufficient” to establish eligibility for CAT relief. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --