HONGJIE ZHAO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-70582 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS HONGJIE ZHAO, No. 10-70582 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-724-958 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 19, 2012 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Hongjie Zhao, 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 9th Cir. R. 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. ยง 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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies between Zhao s asylum application, visa application, and testimony with regard to his address, employment, and reason for leaving China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). The agency reasonably rejected Zhao s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Zhao s CAT claim is based on the same statements found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-70582
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
