Rong Hua Zhou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONG HUA ZHOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70964
Agency No. A099-525-143
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 29, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, District Judge.***
Rong Hua Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration
FILED
SEP 11 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Paul C. Huck, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Southern Florida, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
We review for substantial evidence supporting 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 (9th Cir. 2010).
The IJ expressed specific and cogent reasons for his adverse credibility
finding on the record, including material gaps in Zhou’s testimony, lack of
explanation or detail, apparent exaggerations, and a failure to provide a foundation
for inconsistent corroborating evidence. In light of these findings, and because
they are consistent with the REAL ID Act’s statutory factors, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See id. at
1040–44; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). In the absence of credible testimony,
Zhou’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Zhou’s CAT claims are based on the same testimony that the IJ found not
credible, and because Zhou does not present any other evidence that shows that it
is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156–57.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --