JUNSHI ZHAO, AKA Jinshi Zhao v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNSHI ZHAO, AKA Jinshi Zhao,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71432
Agency No. A099-734-835
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Junshi Zhao, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 23 2016
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 --

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 inconsistencies in the record as to Zhao’s attendance of house church
services, arrest, former employment, and the nature of mistreatment during his
second interrogation. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Zhao’s
explanations for these inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zhao’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible and the record does
not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Zhao would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
13-71432 2

-- 2 of 3 --

China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71432 3

-- 3 of 3 --