Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60268 S u m m ary C al en da r

R U I D E Z H A N G , P et i t i on er v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U . S . A T T O R N E YG E N E R A L , R esp on d en t

P e tition forR e v iew of a n O rd e r o f th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

N o. A 88 057 014

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * RuiD e Zha ng, ana t ive a nd c i t i z e n o f Chi na, pe t i t i o ns f o rar e vi e w o f

t he deci si on of

t h e B oard of Im m i grati on A pp eal s ( B IA) , di sm i ssi n g h i s app ealf rom an i m m i grati on j u dg e’ s (IJ’ s) deci si on t h at pret erm i t t ed h is a p p l i cat i on f or as yl um a s unt i m e l y andde ni e d hi s a ppli c at i o n f o rw i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o va la nd
r el i ef und er t he C onvent i on A gai nst Tort ure ( C A T)

. Th e B IA c onc l ud ed that t he r e w as no c l e ar e r r o r i n t he I J’ s ad ve r s e c r e dibil i t y f i ndi ng ag ai ns t Zhan g and

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60268

2 th a t Z h a n gfa i l e d to m e e t h is b u r d e n to e s ta b lis h e lig ib ilityfo rre lie f. In th is peti t i on , Zh an g argu es t h at t h e I J’ s adverse cr edibi l i t y deci si on w as not sup ported by t h e evi den ce i n t h e rec ord a n d a cc o rd i n gl y, hi s app l i cat i on f or
w i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o va ls ho ul d ha ve b e e n g r ant e d. Fort he f o l l o w i ng r e as o ns , t he p e tit io n fo rre v ie w is d e n ie d

. DI S CU S S I ON On ap e t i t i o n fo rr e v i e w o f a BI A d e c i s i o n , w e r e v i e w t h e o r d e ro f t h e BIA, b u tw e a ls o c o n s id e rt h e I J ’s u n d e r ly in gd e c is io n if itin fl u e n c e dth e B IA 's de t e r m i nat i o n. Mi k h a e l v . I NS , 1 1 5 F

. 3d 299 , 302 ( 5th C i r. 199 7)

. W e revi ew
w h et h er fact u al f

i n di n gs are sup ported by s u bstanti al evi den ce an d w e revi ew q u e s tio n s o f la w d e n o v o . L o p ez
– G o m ezv. A sh cr oft , 263 F

. 3d 442 , 444 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (p e r c u ria m ). B eca u se Z h a n g fi l ed h i s as ylu m cl a i m after M a y 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the R E A L ID A c t p r o v id e s th e re le v a n t c r e d ib ilityd e te r m in a tio n s ta n d a r d s . S ee8 U. S

. C. § 1 158(b) ( 1) ( B ) (i i) –(i i i) ; R E A L I D A c t§ 101, P ub. L. 109- 13, 119 St at
. 231, 302–05 (M ay1 1, 2 00 5) (“ [A] t r i e ro f fac tm ayb as e a c r e dibil i t y de t e r m i nat i o n o n . . . t he
c o ns i s t e nc y be t w e e n t he a ppli c ant ’ s . . . w r i t t e n a nd oralst at e m e nt s . . . , t he i n tern a l con sist en cy of ea ch su ch statem en t, th e con sist en cyof su ch statem en ts
w i t h other evi den ce . . . , a n d an y i n accuraci es or fal sehood s i n such stat em en t s,
w i t ho utr e ga r d t o w he t he ra n i nc o ns i s t e nc y . . . go e s t o t he he ar to f t he
a p p lic a n t’s cla im

. . . .”); W ang v. Hol d er , 569 F. 3d 53 1 , 5 3 7 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (a p p ly in gth e R E A L ID A c t s ta n d a r d). A n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te r m in a tio n is
a fin d in go f fa c t t h a t w e re v ie w u n d e rth e s u b s ta n tia le v i d e n c e s ta n d a r d

. S ee V i d al v. G on zales , 4 91 F

. 3d250 , 254 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)

. “T h e substanti alevi den ce st an da rd requir es on l y t h at the B IA ’ s d eci si on be sup ported by recor d evi den ce a n dbe su b stan tia l l y re a son a b l e.” O m aga h v. A sh cr oft , 28 8 F

. 3 d25 4 , 25 8 ( 5 th C i r. 200 2)

. “R eversali s i m proper u n l ess w e deci de n o t o n l y t h at th e evi den ce sup por ts a c o n t rary concl u si on , bu tal so t h at t h e evi den ce co mp els i t. ” Chen v.N o. 09- 60268

3 G on zales , 470 F. 3d 1131, 1134 ( 5t h C i r. 2006) ( quot i ng Zh ao v. G on zales , 404 F. 3d 295, 306 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) )

. H er e, Z hang bear s t he “burde n of s how i ng t hat t he e vi de nc e i s s o c o m pe l l i ng t hatn o reasona bl e fac t f i nde rc o ul d r e ac h a
con trarycon cl u sion

. ” I d. Zhan g fail s t o m e e t t hi s s t and ar d. The I J’ s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng num e r o us di scr epa n ci es i n Zh an g’ s t est i m on y are suf f i ci en tt o sup port t h e I J’ s adverse
c r edibi l i t y de t er m i nat i on: Zhang’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he dat e o f hi s m ar r i age i s i n consi st en t ; hi s t est i m on y re g a rd i n g t h e l en gth of hi s al l egedhi di n g f rom Chi ne s e “ fam i l y pl anni ng”of f i c i al s i s i nc o ns i s t e nt ; hi s t e s t i m o ny r e ga r di ng t he al l e ge d s t e r i l i z at i o n o f hi s w i fe i s i nc o ns i s t e nt ; and hi s t e s t i m o ny r e ga r di ng t he “fa m i l y p l a n n i n g” fi n e im p ose dafter the birth o f h i s ch i l di s i n con sist en t. Fu r t her , Zhang’ s a t t e m p tt oc l a r if ythi s inc o ns i s t e ntt e s t i m o nywasunpers uasive b e ca u se it d idn o t e x p la inth e d iscr e p a n cie s inh is te stim o n ya n d , ina n dof itse lf,
w a s co n tr a d ic to r y . Al t ho ughZha ng all e ge s t hat the t e s t i m o ny i s a c t uall y c o ns i s t e nta nd
s upp o r t s hi s o ve r all ap pl i c at i o n f o r w it hho l di ng, t he di s c r e pa nc i e s f o und byt he IJ and B IArem ai n . “ [ I] ti s t h e fact f i n der’ s du t y t o m ak e deter m i n ati on s based
on t h e cr edibi l i t y of

t h e w i t n esses , ” an d “[w ] e cann otsubstit u t e ou r j u dg m en tf or th a t of the B IAor IJ w i th resp ec t to
. . . fa ctu a lf i n d i n gs ba sed on cred ib i l i ty d eterm i n a ti on s. ” Ch u n v . I NS , 4 0 F. 3 d7 6 , 7 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) (p e rc u r i a m )

. As such , w e deter m i n e t h at th e evi den ce i n t h e rec ord does not com pelus t o revers e th e IJ ’ s a d v e r s e cr e d ib ilityd e te r m in a tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , Z h a n gfa ile dto m e e t h is b u r d e n to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h e is e lig ib le fo rw ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a l. SeeI NS v. El i as
–Zac ar i as , 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 , 4 8 3

– 8 4 (1 9 9 2 ). CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED

.