Court Opinion

ID: 6344433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-26 20:00:43.189706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:21.599816
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 26 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XUQIANG ZHANG,                                  No.    16-70080

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A087-866-963

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Xuqiang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies in Zhang’s evidence regarding the time frame of his

detention, whether he reported to the police as required, and whether he needed

stitches. See id. at 1047-48 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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). In light of this

disposition, we need not reach his remaining contentions regarding the merits of

his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

reach).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Zhang’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and

Zhang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See

                                         2                                       16-70080
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                    16-70080