Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jinhu ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Filed Oct. 28, 2014.
    
      Evangeline G. Abriel, Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing, Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jinhu Zhao, pro se.
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jinhu Zhao petitions this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition in part and dismiss the petition in part.

Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, which the BIA adopted, is supported by substantial evidence, we reject Zhao’s challenge to the adverse credibility finding. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1386 (9th Cir.2013). Under the REAL ID Act, credibility determinations must be made “[considering the totality of the circumstances,” and may be based on “all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii). Substantial evidence supports one or more of the following material inconsistencies on which the IJ based her adverse credibility finding: (i) inconsistencies in the facts of Zhao’s conversion to Christianity, (ii) inconsistencies in the details of the harm Zhao allegedly received while in detention, (iii) inconsistencies in Zhao’s statements regarding his livelihood in China, and (iv) inconsistencies regarding Zhao’s religious practice in the United States. The evidence does not “compel[] a contrary result,” as is required to overturn an IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir.2014) (citation omitted).

Because Zhao failed to exhaust his due process arguments before the BIA, we dismiss his petition to review the BIA’s decision as to his due process claims. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1136 (9th Cir.2013) (“[Challenges to procedural errors correctable by the administrative tribunal, must be exhausted.... ” (quoting Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.2001))). Although an applicant for asylum “need not use precise legal terminology to exhaust his claim” or “provide a well developed argument to support his claim, ... he must put the issue ... before the BIA such that it had the opportunity to correct its error.” Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In his brief before the BIA, Zhao asserted that “[t]he IJ reached her decision with respect of [sic] [Zhao’s] credibility in part upon a preconceived notion that based on [Zhao’s] inability to articulate key facts, he was not credible,” and that this “led the IJ to reach an irrational decision as to [Zhao’s] credibility.” This recitation was insufficient to put the BIA on notice that Zhao intended to make due process arguments based on bias, improper translation, and an inability to present corroborating evidence.

DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.