Lizhu Zhang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LIZHU ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73244
Agency No. A099-064-211
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Lizhu 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
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-73244
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the new 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because of numerous unexplained inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony, and
between his testimony and written declaration, regarding significant aspects of his
claim. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under
the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”); Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d
1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (repeated and significant inconsistencies deprived claim
of the requisite “ring of truth”). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhang’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Zhang’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
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --