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

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73319 Age n c y No. A099-900-074
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 August 5, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd HAW K INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Zhic he ng Zhong, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions pro se for re vie w of
a de c ision by

the B oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) a ffirm ing the im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic ations for a s y lum , withholding of



# FIL ED
AUG 6 2020 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).re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition.

“ W e re vie w a dve rse c re dibility findings for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd m ust uphold the m

unle s s the e vide nc e c ompe l s a c ontra ry re sult.” Singh v . Holde r , 643 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th C ir. 2011). Unde r the REAL ID Ac t , a ny fa l se hoods, inc o nsiste nc i e s, ina c c ura c ie s, or om issions of de ta il in a n a pplic ant’ s sta

te m e nts
c an support a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding, re ga

rdle ss of whe the r the y

go to the he art of the a

pplic ant’ s c la im
. Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1093 (9th C ir. 2010); 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii) (a uthoriz ing a ge nc y to ba se an a dve rse
c re d ibility

finding on the

“ tota lity of the c irc um sta

n c e s ” and “ a l l re le v ant fa c tors” ). He re , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation ba se d on the following: (i) Zhong’ s m isre pre se ntation re ga rding his
e duc ationa l atta i nm e nt , se e Singh , 643 F.3d a t 1181 (an a

pplic ant’ s c hoic e “ to lie to im m igration a

uthoritie s . . . a lwa

y s c ounts a s substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporting a n
a dve rse c re dibility

finding” ); (ii) inte rna l inc onsiste nc ie s in his te stim ony for whic h he fa ile d to provide “ re a sona ble and pla

usible ” e xpla

nations, R izk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011) (c i tation omitte d); (iii) disc re pa nc i e s be twe e n Zhong’ s writte n sta

te m e nt in support of his asy l um a pplic ation a

nd his te stim ony , notwithsta

nding theopportunity

he ha d to re vie w a

nd a m e nd the form e r, se e
2Malk

andi v . Holde r , 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th C ir. 2009) (upholding cre dibility de te rm i nation whe re a

pplic a nt, inte r alia , “ pa sse d up opportunitie s to c orre c t [prior] m issta

te m e nts” ); a

nd (iv) Zhong’ s fa ilure to m e ntion in his a sy lum
a pplic ation “ a lle g e d polic e m isc onduc t tha t would ha

ve supporte d his a

pplic ations for re lie f,” Silv a-Pe re ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1186 (9th C ir. 2016) (quota tion
m arks om itte d). 1 Abse nt c re dible te stim o ny , Zhong’ s a sy lum and withholding
c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 2 The B IA’ s a dve rse c re d i bility de te rm inat ion “ doe s not, by itse lf, ne c e ssa rily de fe at” a C AT c la im
. Garc i a v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C i r. 2014). R athe r, “ a ll e vide nc e re le va nt to thepossibility

of future torture sha ll be
c onside re d.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3). Howe ve r, if a pe titione r’ s te stim ony

is

1 W e ne e d not a ddre ss the re m a ining grounds c ite d by the a ge nc y in support of its a dve rse c re dibility

finding. Se e Rizk

, 629 F.3d a

t 1088 (“ [W ] e m

ust uphold the IJ's a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination so long a s e ve n one ba sis is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” ). 2 B e c a use we have a lre a dy

found tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation, we ne e d not re a c h Zhong’ s c onte ntion that the a ge nc y

e rre d in ba sing its adve rse c re d i bility de te rm ination, in pa

rt, on Zhong’ s fa ilure to providec orroborative e v ide nc e tha t wa s “ not e a s y

or e ve n re a s ona bly e a sy to obta in.” Se e Lai v . Holde r , 773 F.3d 966, 976 (9th C ir. 2014) (e xpla ining tha

t whe n the a g e nc y ’ s “ re a sons for finding a n a sy lum a pplic ant not c re d ible a re n ot supporte d by

substa ntia l e v ide nc e , the a

pplic ant, be ing ‘ othe rw ise c re d ible ,’ is e ntitle d to notic e tha t he ne e ds to produc e c o rroborative e vide nc e and an opportunity to e i the r produc e the e vide nc e or e xpla i n why it is una va ila b le ” (quoting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(ii) (e m pha sis a dde d)). 3disc re dite d, he m ust substa ntia te his c la im s with inde

pe n de nt c o rroborating
e vide nc e . Se e Garc ia , 749 F.3d a t 792. Zhong se e ks to c orroborate his C AT c la im with c ountry

c ondition re

ports
a bout C hina . Howe ve r, the se re ports, whic h foc u s on ge ne ra liz e d viole nc e in C hina , do not show tha

t Zhong is spe c ific a l ly

“ m ore like ly

tha n not” to be torture d if he re turns. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). Substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the de nia l of C AT re lie f. Se e Almaghzar v . Gonzale s , 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th C ir. 2006) (finding “ disc re dite d te stim ony and ge ne ra l re ports indic ating tha t torture oc c urs” in pe titione r’ s hom e c ountry insuffic ie nt to “ c om

pe l the c o nc lusion tha

t [pe titione r] would be torture d if re turne d” ).

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

4