Zhongming Zhou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHONGMING ZHOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70906
Agency No. A095-302-749
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
ZhongMing Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70906 2
substantial evidence the agency’s adverse credibility findings. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Zhou demonstrated changed
circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. 208.4(a)(4); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657–58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny Zhou’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because
Zhou testified inconsistently with respect to the date of his arrest and the length of
time he remained in China after his arrest. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993
(9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of corroborating evidence, his withholding of
removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
Finally, Zhou has failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief because
Zhou’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found not credible and
Zhou points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered. See id. at
1156–57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --