LIU ZHANG V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73597 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 6 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIU ZHU ZHANG, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-73597 Agency No. A088-103-903 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Liu Zhu Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We * 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). 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). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony regarding his house church attendance in China, inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his church attendance in the United States, and his nonresponsive and evasive demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). 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). Finally, Zhang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence that was found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See id. at 1156-57. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2
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.
