Diyang Zhang v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIYANG ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71611
Agency No. A200-797-706
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 7, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Diyang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 for substantial
* 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).
FILED
JAN 9 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71611
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.
Zhang’s inconsistent and contradictory testimony before the IJ regarding his
visa application provides substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
“the totality of circumstances”); see also Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th
Cir. 2011) (agency’s adverse credibility determination must be upheld so long as
one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence).
Because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding, we
uphold the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We reject as unsupported by the record Zhang’s contention that the IJ
violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --