N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HANGXU ZHAO,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72979 Age n c y No. A200-801-553
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 11, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, SILVER

M AN, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C ha ngxu Zha o, na

tive and c itiz e n of the Pe ople ’ s R e public of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ), dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation 

# FIL ED
MAY12 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. 1. Afte r c onside ring the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s a nd a l l re le va

n t fa c tors, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

finding ba se d on (A) Zhoa ’ s de m e anor, (B ) inc onsiste nc i e s in Zhoa ’ s te s tim ony , a nd (C ) Zhoa ’ s fa ilure to produc e c orroborating e vide nc e . Se e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039- 40 (9th C ir. 2010). A. An IJ’ s de m e anor finding is entitle d to “ spe c ia l de fe re nc e .” Se e K in v
. Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th C ir. 2010). TheIJ ha d the opportunity to obse rve Zha o a

nd note d (a s outline d by

the B IA) that Zha o “ a

ppe a re d to be te stify ing from rote m e m oriz ation, de sc ribing diffe re nt inc i de nts of purporte d be atings a s if e a c h inc ide nt wa s e xa c tly the sa m e a s the othe rs, a

nd without a

ny
e m otion.” This e x am

ple is suffic ie nt to support a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Se e id. B
. Zha o did not c ha lle nge the c onc lusion tha t he provide d inc onsiste nt sta te m e nts re ga

rding why

he obta ine d a

pa ssport. Rathe r, he argue d tha t this finding is not supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e , be c a

use it doe s not go to the

“ he art of the c l a im .” Howe v e r, c re dibility de te rm inations under the REAL ID Ac t
2no longe r ne e d to go thehe art of the c la im
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii).

Thus, e ve n if this inc onsiste nc y we re m inor, s e e

, e .g. , Eny i ng Li v . Holde r , 738 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th C ir. 2013) (noting tha t “ whe n a nd why [pe titione r] a

pplie d for a p a ssport a

re c e ntra l to de te rm ining whe the r she suffe re d re ligious pe rse c ution” ), Zha o’ s argum e nt la c ks m e rit. C
. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w Zha o’ s a rgum e nts re ga

rding his la c k of
c orroborative e vide n c e . Se eBarron v
. Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004). As the B IA note d , Zha o fa ile d to ra ise any c ha lle nge to the IJ’ s finding tha t Zha o did not provide

c orroborative e vide nc e of his a tte n da nc e at C hristia

n
c hurc h e s in the Unite d State s. B a se d on the fore going, there c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc l usion tha

t the
a dve rse c re dibility

finding wa s in e rror. Ac c ordingly , in the a b se nc e of c re dible
e vide nc e , Zha o ha s fa ile d to show e ligibility for a sy lum

or withholding. Se e Farah
v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Zha o fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for C AT re lie f. B e c a

use Zha o’ s C AT c la im

is ba se d on the sa m e te stim ony that the IJ found to benot c re dible , it fa ils a s we ll. Se e Almaghzar v . Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th C ir. 2006). Zha o points to no

3othe r re c ord e vide nc e tha t the IJ or the B IA should ha ve c onside re d to support his C AT c la i m . S

e e Farah , 348 F.3d a

t 1157. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4