Bingjun Zhang; Yinglin Liu v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BINGJUN ZHANG; YINGLIN LIU,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70724
Agency Nos. A205-547-830
A205-547-831
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Bingjun Zhang and Yinglin Liu, natives and citizens of China, petition pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70724
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under 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 adverse credibility determination based on
Zhang’s inconsistent testimony regarding her abortion certificate, hospital
booklets, and rental house contract. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Zhang’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that
petitioners did not present corroborative evidence that would rehabilitate Zhang’s
credibility or otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder,
749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was
insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ contentions as to the
merits of their asylum or withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70724
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Zhang’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and the record does
not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --