Wenping Zhu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WENPING ZHU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73631
Agency No. A095-445-303
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.
Wenping Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73631 2
substantial evidence factual findings. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies regarding the timing and length of Zhu’s detention go
to the heart of his claim. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir.
2005) (concluding the discrepancies were significant because they involved one of
the few interactions between the petitioner and the police). In the absence of
credible evidence, Zhu has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Zhu does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
argued are deemed waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s claim that the IJ demonstrated bias
because this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --