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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAOYAN ZHOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70264
Agency No. A088-569-511
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Baoyan Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
* 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
DEC 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Zhou’s testimony and documents regarding both
the chronology of events in her departure from China and the nature of the
“guarantee” document the police had her sign during her detention. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). Zhou’s explanations do not compel a contrary result, see Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000), and we reject Zhou’s contention that her
documentary evidence rehabilitates her testimony, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (documents not sufficient to rehabilitate testimony).
Further, we reject Zhou’s contentions that the IJ’s credibility analysis was
incomplete or insufficient. Thus, 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).
Finally, Zhou’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and she does not point to any other evidence that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --