Chunshan Zhao v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNSHAN ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72053
Agency No. A089-883-354
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Chunshan Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
FILED
JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction 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 BIA’s adverse credibility determination,
including repeated inconsistencies about where Zhao was working when he learned
of his sister’s illness, the inconsistency between his testimony and his household
registration regarding his occupation, and a finding that Zhao’s demeanor
undermined his credibility. See id. at 1048 (agency’s adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of circumstances); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147,
1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting special deference to demeanor-based credibility
findings); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA not
compelled to accept petitioner’s explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence
of credible testimony, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Zhao’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim
12-72053 2

-- 2 of 3 --

also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72053 3

-- 3 of 3 --