Mindong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MINDONG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70841
Agency No. A099-445-172
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Mindong Zheng, 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 withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70841 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Zheng’s inability to recall the name of the pastor who baptized him and
inconsistent testimony related to employment and residences. See id. at 1043-44.
The BIA was not compelled to accept Zheng’s explanations for the inconsistencies.
See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Zheng’s
contentions that the agency’s analysis was improperly speculative. Accordingly,
Zheng’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Further, because Zheng’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found
to be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails.
See Farah v. Holder, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --