Zhengrong Peng 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ZHENGRONG PENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73078
Agency No. A099-369-837
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Zhengrong Peng, 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
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73078 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the Real ID Act. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Peng’s testimony regarding when he began attending the home church was
inconsistent with his written declaration. See id. at 1046-1047 (“inability to
consistently describe the underlying events that gave rise to his fear was an
important factor that could be relied upon by the IJ in making an adverse
credibility determination”). In the absence of credible testimony, Peng’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Peng’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no 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
1156-57.
We reject Peng’s due process contention. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process
claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73078 3
Finally, Peng’s request for oral argument is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --