Zhao Jin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHAO JIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73187
Agency No. A088-112-411
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Zhao Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
MAR 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-73187
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jin’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT
claim because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Jin’s misrepresentations to immigration officials and on the IJ’s
demeanor finding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (describing an adverse
credibility determination as reasonable when “grounded in the record and based on
real problems . . . not mere trivialities.”); see also Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149,
1153 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining “[t]he need for deference [in credibility cases] is
particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments.”). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, Jin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --