Zhengxuan Lin v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHENGXUAN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71057
Agency No. A209-772-225
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Zhengxuan Lin, 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-71057
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 Lin’s demeanor during his testimony and Lin’s failure to produce
reasonably available corroborative evidence. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149,
1153, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the “need for deference is particularly
strong in the context of demeanor assessments” and citing the lack of corroborating
evidence as a basis for the adverse credibility determination); see also Shrestha,
590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances). Lin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s finding that Lin’s corroborative evidence did not independently
establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2014). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Lin’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-71057
agency found not credible, and Lin does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --