IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60430

Summary Calendar

XIU QIN ZHENG,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 039 778

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Xiu Qin Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her 

appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). (The IJ’s first decision, favorable to Zheng, was remanded on 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60430 Document: 00512993947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2015
No. 14-60430

appeal to the BIA for the IJ to make additional findings regarding Zheng’s 

credibility and to issue a new decision.)

Regarding her credibility, including regarding an alleged forced 

abortion, Zheng contends: a sentence in her father’s written statement 

reflecting that she may have seen her aborted child was ambiguous, and, thus 

not inconsistent with her testimony denying having seen the child; any 

inconsistency about her description of the location where she hid during her 

pregnancy was minor and adequately explained; the IJ and BIA erred in 

relying on her I-213 Form (Report of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) to 

conclude she had provided inconsistent explanations of her reasons for coming 

to the United States; and information in the State Department’s report on 

conditions in China was insufficient to call into question a document obtained 

from her home village reflecting that her child had been aborted by familyplanning officials.

An IJ’s credibility determination is reviewed under a highly deferential 

standard, and it must be upheld “unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 

it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 

ruling”. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). The IJ “may rely on any inconsistency or 

omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality 

of the circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible”. Id.

(emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Zheng has not shown that the record compels a conclusion that her 

testimony and evidence was credible. The IJ’s credibility determination is

supported “by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record”. Zhang v. 

Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). In the light of 

the adverse credibility ruling, the IJ and BIA had no basis supporting a grant 

2

 Case: 14-60430 Document: 00512993947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2015
No. 14-60430

of asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. E.g., Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 

76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). 

DENIED.

3

 Case: 14-60430 Document: 00512993947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2015