NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAN ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-220

Agency No. A206-662-830

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 29, 2024**

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, LEE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jian Zhang, a Chinese national, seeks review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his 

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 10 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny his 

petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). An adverse credibility 

determination may be based on an inconsistency between an applicant’s testimony 

and other evidence of record. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 749 

(9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Zhang testified that he 

organized a 300-person protest against the Chinese government at the Jiuyan Bridge 

in Sichuan, China, where authorities arrested him. But the government submitted 

several newspaper articles indicating that this demonstration did not occur; for 

example, one article stated that “a march in Chengdu, Sichuan province, was 

prevented by police” and that “authorities preemptively sealed off several 

landmarks,” including the Jiuyan Bridge, to ward off protestors. When confronted 

with these inconsistencies by the IJ, Zhang suggested that his protest occurred at a 

different date or time. 

The IJ found Zhang’s explanation unpersuasive, especially in light of Zhang’s 

testimony that the date of the protest was planned to coincide with a prominent 

holiday. The IJ’s interpretation of the testimony is reasonable and supported by 

substantial evidence. Zhang now attempts to reconcile the newspaper articles with 

his testimony by intimating that isolated pockets of protest activity had, in fact, 
3

occurred despite police intervention. By not crediting his explanation, Zhang argues, 

the IJ engaged in “impermissible speculation and conjecture.” Ge v. Ashcroft, 367 

F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2004). But the IJ did not speculate and instead supported 

the adverse credibility determination “with specific citations to record evidence.” 

Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds, Alam 

v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Zhang’s alternative 

interpretation of his testimony before the IJ—which he also raised below to the 

BIA—may be plausible. But the agency was “not compelled to accept [his] 

explanation for the discrepancy.” Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) 

(emphasis added).

2. Even if we assume that Zhang’s testimony was credible, substantial 

evidence still supports the agency’s denial of Zhang’s applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 

2019). Asylum applicants must establish a likelihood of “persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Zhang testified to 

suffering a single beating from Chinese officials during his post-demonstration 

imprisonment, but that level of physical abuse does not compel the conclusion that 

Zhang suffered past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 

2006). Nor does the record compel the conclusion that Zhang’s fear of future 

persecution upon his return to China is objectively reasonable, especially given that 
4

Zhang remained in China under government surveillance for an extended period 

without suffering further harm, and that Zhang’s family has resided in China without 

incident. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Because Zhang has not met the less onerous “well-founded fear” burden for 

demonstrating asylum eligibility, he necessarily has failed to meet the more stringent 

“clear probability” standard required for withholding of removal. Sharma, 9 F.4th 

at 1066.

3. Finally, because Zhang failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim 

before the BIA, we decline to entertain those unexhausted arguments. See UmanaEscobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023). 

PETITION DENIED.