T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T Z H O N G L I, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 73007 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 063- 340 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Z hong L i , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( B I A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JU L 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 73007 2 s ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s . D on v. G on zales , 47 6 F . 3d 73 8, 74 1 (9th C i r. 2007) . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e di s m i s s i n parta nd d e n yi n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e dec l i ne t o con si der the new evi dence L i att ac hes t o h i s openi ng bri ef b ec au se o u r r ev iew is li m it ed to th e a d m in istrativ e r ec o rd u n d er lyin g th e I J’s d e c is io n . See Fis h e rv . I NS , 79 F . 3d 95 5, 96 3 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( en banc). W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe a ge nc y ’ s t i m e - barf i ndi ng be c aus e the f a c ts c o n c e rn in g L i’s e n tryin to th e U n ite dS ta te s a r e d is p u te d . See R am adan v. G on zales , 4 7 9 F .3 d6 4 6 , 6 4 8 - 5 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a ls o la c kju r is d ic tio n to rev i ew L i ’ s co n t en t i o n s reg ard i n g a p att ern o r p ract i ce o f p ersecu t i o n ag ai n st C h r is tian s in u n d e r g r o u n dc h u r c h e s , h is v io la tio n o f C h in a ’s e x it law s , an dh is c o n du c t o u ts id e C h in ab e c au s e L i d idn o t r a is e th e s e is s u e s to th e B I A . See B arr on v . A s h c r o ft , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 8 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty f i nd i ng base d on i nc ons i s t e ntt e s t i m onyr e gar di ng w he the rL i w a s phy s i c a l l ym i s tr e a t e d dur i ng h is th ir din te rr o g a tio n . See Pa l v . I NS , 204 F . 3d 935, 939- 40 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf

i ndi ng s upport e d w he r e i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n t e s t i m ony a n dap p lic a tio n r e g ar d in g in ju r ie s r e c e iv e ddu r in g a s s au lts w e n t to h e art o f c la im ) . A cc o rd in g ly, i n th e ab se n ce o f c re d ib le testim o n y, w e d en y th e p etit io n as to L i’ s09- 73007 3 w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im . See Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 3 4 8 F .3 d1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 ( 9 th C i r. 20 03 ). F in a lly , w e r e

je c t L i’s C A T c la im b e c au s e it is b a s e do n th e s a m e s ta te m e n ts the a ge nc yf

ound notc r e di bl e , a nd the r e c or d doe s notothe rw i s e c om pe l af i ndi ng i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan notL i w oul d be t ortur e d byorw i th the a c qui e s c e nc e of the g o v e rn m e n t if

r e tu rn e dto C h in a . See i d. a t1156- 57. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.