Xiaozhen Weng v. Loretta E. Lynch

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Xiaozhen Weng v. Loretta E. Lynch, 667 F. App'x 938 (9th Cir. 2016)

Xiaozhen Weng v. Loretta E. Lynch

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Heping 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 and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 review de novo due process contentions, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Zhang’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the date Chinese authorities allegedly demolished his home and as to his house address. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhang’s due process contention concerning corroboration because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reference

Full Case Name
Heping ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Status
Unpublished