Jiyong Zheng 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JIYONG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72546
Agency No. A076-862-016
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jiyong Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “This court reviews factual
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72546 2
determinations, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.”
Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition
for review.
There were discrepancies between Zheng’s asylum application and his
testimony concerning the circumstances of his mother’s death. See Li v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004). There were further discrepancies between
Zheng’s asylum application, his testimony, and his father’s asylum application
concerning his father’s imprisonment and his mother’s death following their
participation in a political demonstration. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th
Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because these discrepancies go to the heart of Zheng’s claim, and the IJ reasonably
found Zheng’s explanations for the discrepancies unconvincing. See Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of
credible testimony, Zheng’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --