Junyong Zuo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNYONG ZUO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73065
Agency No. A099-448-702
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Junyong Zuo, 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 decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
* 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
MAY 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-73065
process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency as to whether Zuo saw an article covering a protest he
led in China. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2020)
(inconsistency supported adverse credibility determination where it was not trivial
and petitioner’s explanations did not resolve or adequately explain it); see also
Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2013) (a witness’s entire
testimony may be disbelieved “if the witness makes a material and conscious
falsehood in one aspect of his testimony”). We reject as unsupported by the record
the two contentions that Zuo raises in his opening brief, specifically, that he was
not given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency in his testimony and that the
IJ mischaracterized his testimony. Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in
this case, Zuo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Zuo’s contention that the BIA erred by not addressing a claim under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) fails where the record shows Zuo did not

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-73065
challenge the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim to the BIA, and as a result, we lack
jurisdiction to consider his contentions, raised in his opening brief, that he is
eligible for CAT relief. See Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[Petitioner’s] failure to assert [a] claim before the BIA deprived it of the
opportunity to address the issue and divests us of jurisdiction to review it.”);
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust
issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --