Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0067-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEI ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73515.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    David T. Sun, Esquire, Law Office of David T. Sun, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jenny L. Smith, Esquire, U.S. Attorney Office, Birmingham, AL, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wei Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination because Zhu’s asylum application omitted that he was handcuffed to an iron rod, slapped, kicked and beaten on his shoulder during a brief detention, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and Zhu failed to explain these omissions when given the opportunity, see Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Zhu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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