Jian Zhang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-220
Agency No. A206-662-830
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 29, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, LEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jian Zhang, a Chinese national, seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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
APR 10 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny his
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). An adverse credibility
determination may be based on an inconsistency between an applicant’s testimony
and other evidence of record. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 749
(9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Zhang testified that he
organized a 300-person protest against the Chinese government at the Jiuyan Bridge
in Sichuan, China, where authorities arrested him. But the government submitted
several newspaper articles indicating that this demonstration did not occur; for
example, one article stated that “a march in Chengdu, Sichuan province, was
prevented by police” and that “authorities preemptively sealed off several
landmarks,” including the Jiuyan Bridge, to ward off protestors. When confronted
with these inconsistencies by the IJ, Zhang suggested that his protest occurred at a
different date or time.
The IJ found Zhang’s explanation unpersuasive, especially in light of Zhang’s
testimony that the date of the protest was planned to coincide with a prominent
holiday. The IJ’s interpretation of the testimony is reasonable and supported by
substantial evidence. Zhang now attempts to reconcile the newspaper articles with
his testimony by intimating that isolated pockets of protest activity had, in fact,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
occurred despite police intervention. By not crediting his explanation, Zhang argues,
the IJ engaged in “impermissible speculation and conjecture.” Ge v. Ashcroft, 367
F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004). But the IJ did not speculate and instead supported
the adverse credibility determination “with specific citations to record evidence.”
Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds, Alam
v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Zhang’s alternative
interpretation of his testimony before the IJ—which he also raised below to the
BIA—may be plausible. But the agency was “not compelled to accept [his]
explanation for the discrepancy.” Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021)
(emphasis added).
2. Even if we assume that Zhang’s testimony was credible, substantial
evidence still supports the agency’s denial of Zhang’s applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). Asylum applicants must establish a likelihood of “persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Zhang testified to
suffering a single beating from Chinese officials during his post-demonstration
imprisonment, but that level of physical abuse does not compel the conclusion that
Zhang suffered past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir.
2006). Nor does the record compel the conclusion that Zhang’s fear of future
persecution upon his return to China is objectively reasonable, especially given that

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Zhang remained in China under government surveillance for an extended period
without suffering further harm, and that Zhang’s family has resided in China without
incident. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021).
Because Zhang has not met the less onerous “well-founded fear” burden for
demonstrating asylum eligibility, he necessarily has failed to meet the more stringent
“clear probability” standard required for withholding of removal. Sharma, 9 F.4th
at 1066.
3. Finally, because Zhang failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim
before the BIA, we decline to entertain those unexhausted arguments. See Umana-
Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --