Jiyong Zhao v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIYONG ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73716
Agency No. A087-723-388
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Jiyong Zhao, 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JUN 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-73716
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
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Zhao’s declaration and testimony as to whether
he worked again in China after being laid off in 2005, inconsistencies within his
testimony as to the names of the churches he attended in the United States, and a
lack of detail in his testimony about who was present at the house church when
Zhao was arrested. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d. at 1048 (concluding adverse credibility
determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Zhao’s
explanations for the inconsistencies 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, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because,
even if credible, Zhao failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding no likelihood of torture).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73716
We do not consider the information from country conditions reports that
Zhao references in his opening brief that is not a part of the administrative record
considered by the BIA. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --