Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0481-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XUEJIAN ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70051.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Lindsay Williams Zimliki, Oil, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xuejian Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Zhao does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Zhao’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Zhao’s testimony and his wife’s letter as to when they lost their apartment. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the circumstances standard). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zhao’s CAT claim because it is based on the same evidence found not credible and he does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.