Xiao Zheng, a/k/a XIAO FENG ZHENG v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAO ZHENG, a/k/a XIAO FENG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72670
Agency No. A089-767-608
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,***
District Judge.
Xiao Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of an Immigration
* 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 2 --

2
Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We
deny the petition.1
Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,
which the BIA affirmed. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
2017). The IJ properly relied on Zheng’s inconsistent testimony about his reasons
for seeking work in Beijing, the omission from his declaration about the fear of
forced sterilization that Zheng included in his testimony, Zheng’s implausible
testimony about his wife’s ability to obtain official documents while in hiding, and
Zheng’s evasive testimony about his residence in Las Vegas. See Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th
822, 836–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (an “IJ’s implausibility finding will ultimately hinge on
the application of a reasonable evaluation of the testimony and evidence based on
common sense.”). In the absence of Zheng’s rejected testimony, the evidence does
not establish eligibility for relief. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; Ramirez-Munoz
v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION DENIED.
1 The BIA treated Zheng’s claim for relief under the Convention Against
Torture as “waived on appeal,” and Zheng does not argue otherwise in his petition
for review.

-- 2 of 2 --