BINGJUN ZHANG V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-70724 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BINGJUN ZHANG; YINGLIN LIU, Petitioners, No. 19-70724 Agency Nos. A205-547-830 A205-547-831 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Bingjun Zhang and Yinglin Liu, natives and citizens of China, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 103940 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on Zhang’s inconsistent testimony regarding her abortion certificate, hospital booklets, and rental house contract. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the determination that petitioners did not present corroborative evidence that would rehabilitate Zhang’s credibility or otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ 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 do not reach petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of their asylum or withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). 2 19-70724 Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’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 conclusion that it is more likely than not she 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. We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 96364 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-70724
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.
