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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHONGDE LI,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71268
Agency No. A099-447-947
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Zhongde Li, a 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-71268
under 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 Li’s admitted misrepresentations as to his residence. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An
asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility
and the rest of his story.”). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Li’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Li’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that
it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Almaghzar
v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --