Yunfeng Zhou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNFENG ZHOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71153
Agency No. A200-784-751
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yunfeng Zhou, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
JAN 27 2015
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 2 --

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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Zhou’s written statement of the fine allegedly imposed
by family planning officials. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard); see
also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility
finding supported where incidents petitioner omitted from asylum application
materially altered claim). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhou’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71153

-- 2 of 2 --