Li Zhu Nan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LI ZHU NAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73233
Agency No. A098-889-381
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Li Zhu Nan, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

08-73233 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in removal
proceedings. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
Li contends he was persecuted on account of his religious beliefs and
persecuted under China’s population-control policies. With regard to his religion
claim, the IJ reasonably concluded Li was not credible based on his weak
testimony about the injuries he sustained during his claimed detention and about
his church attendance in the U.S. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances). In addition,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding regarding
Li’s population-control claim because his initial declaration provided no facts
about a forced abortion. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004)
(adverse credibility finding supported where petitioner did not raise claim that his
wife was forcibly sterilized in his asylum applications). Finally, the agency
properly concluded Li failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not amending
his declaration prior to his initial merits hearing because he was represented by

-- 2 of 4 --

08-73233 3
counsel, and the record does not compel acceptance of his explanations. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner’s explanation for
omitting incidents was plausible, but record did not compel belief “in light of the
importance of the omitted incidents to his asylum claim”). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Li’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
The record does not compel reversal of the agency’s denial of CAT
protection because Li’s CAT claim is based on the same statements the agency
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that
would compel a finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned
to China. See id. at 1156-57. Accordingly, Li’s CAT claim fails.
Further, in light of our conclusions, we reject Li’s due process contentions
regarding the claimed mistranslation in his declaration and speculation by the IJ.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and
substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge to immigration
proceedings). We also reject his contention that the IJ’s conduct denied him a
meaningful opportunity to establish his claim. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1271, 1276 (9th Cir. 2007).

-- 3 of 4 --

08-73233 4
Finally, we deny both Li’s request for oral argument and his request for
attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --