Ping Zhao v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PING ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72861
Agency No. A099-367-292
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Ping Zhao petitions for review of a September 7, 2011, order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of Zhao’s
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and
FILED
AUG 15 2013
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 --

procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the
issues raised on appeal.
The “BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of [petitioner’s] withholding of removal
claim on the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and we review
adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard.”
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
Zhao claims that, because she violated China’s one child policy, she was
forced to undergo mandatory abortions and that she faces sterilization if she
returns. However, Zhao concedes that there were a number of inconsistencies in
her application and testimony. Although, under the Real ID Act, inconsistencies
need not go to the heart of petitioner’s claim, Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47, the
inconsistencies here were substantial and unexplained. The adverse credibility
determination was well-founded and supported by substantial evidence.
Zhao claimed in her written asylum application that in China she had been
forced to have two abortions for violating the one-child policy. However, at her
hearing, Zhao testified that she had been forced to have four abortions, and
appeared not to recall when they had taken place. Zhao also stated in her
application that she was married in China in 1980, but testified at the hearing that
she had never been married in China, and later at the same hearing changed her
story again. Zhao’s testimony about her residence in China also contradicted her

-- 2 of 3 --

application. She did not explain these discrepancies despite direct questions from
the IJ. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). Zhao also offered
little explanation of how she survived in China for 17 years before coming to the
United States, if she had genuinely been under real threat. She did not document
the existence of her two children in China, despite telling the IJ that she could
obtain birth certificates. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009).
We also uphold the BIA’s denial of Zhao’s CAT claim. As the BIA noted,
Zhao pointed to “no evidence, beyond her discredited claim of past forced
abortions, in support of her assertion that she risks torture by or with the
acquiescence or ‘willful blindness’ of the government upon return to China.”
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --