Case Name: WENQING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 424
Docket Number: No. 13-73287
Parties: WENQING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
WENQING ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
Thomas J. Tarigo, Esq., Law Offices of' Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Manuel Palau, Siu P. Wong, Esq., Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wenqing Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies within Zhang's testimony regarding his work schedule and church attendance in China, as well as his inconsistent and unresponsive answers to questions regarding documentary evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Zhang's explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhang's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of Zhang's CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not Zhang would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.