Zhipeng Qu v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHIPENG QU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73853
Agency No. A089-882-610
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Zhipeng Qu, 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 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 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73853
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Qu’s testimony, inconsistencies between his
testimony and his declaration, Qu’s use of false information to obtain a visa, and
his demeanor. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th
954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (applicant’s false information on visa application
supported adverse credibility determination); Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261,
1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (agency’s demeanor finding was supported where IJ provided
“specific, first-hand observations”). Qu’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Qu’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In his opening brief, Qu does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge
to the denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73853
(9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner waived challenge to issue not specifically raised and
argued in his opening brief).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Qu failed to establish the IJ violated
his right to due process by exhibiting bias. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (error and
prejudice required to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --