Yu Peng 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YU PENG ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75157
Agency No. A077-894-917
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Yu Peng 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, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
NOV 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75157 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact,
including adverse credibility determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d
1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Zhang’s contention that the IJ did not make
an adverse credibility determination, because he failed to exhaust that issue before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the omission from Zhang’s asylum application of the beating he
endured during his detention. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir.
2010). 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).
Finally, because Zhang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found
to be not credible, and Zhang 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 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --