Zhang v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUAN YUAN ZHANG; J. Y. Z., No. 25-6031 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A245-365-755 A245-365-794 v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 14, 2026** Reno, Nevada Before: BADE, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Yuan Yaun Zhang and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying asylum, withholding of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. removal, and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination considering the “totality of the circumstances[ ] and all relevant factors,” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), and in light of this “extremely deferential” standard of review, Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)).

In support of her claim of persecution on account of her political opinion, Zhang’s declaration and testimony described her ten-day detention and the surrounding circumstances. The IJ concluded that Zhang gave differing testimony about when she formed the political opinion underlying her claims. Zhang did not challenge this determination before the BIA. Therefore, as Respondent argues, we do not consider Zhang’s unexhausted challenge to this basis for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Suate-Orellana v. Garland, 101 F.4th 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that the court “must enforce the” exhaustion requirement when properly raised (citation omitted)).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that there are nontrivial discrepancies between Zhang’s declaration and her testimony, that her declaration includes an implausible statement, and that she omitted a material fact from her declaration. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2022) (acknowledging that later disclosures that bolster a petitioner’s application “can certainly form the basis of an adverse credibility determination”); see also Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926–27 (9th Cir. 2020) (concluding that inconsistencies that are related to topics relevant to the claim of persecution are not trivial and support an adverse credibility determination); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (listing factors relevant to a credibility determination and explaining that “even minor inconsistencies” may have an impact on credibility). Even assuming that Zhang’s explanations for the inconsistencies and omission are “plausible,” the agency was not obligated to accept them. See Dong, 50 F.4th at 1301 (“[P]lausible explanations do not always compel credence.”). Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the nontrivial inconsistencies and the omission are sufficient support for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Alam, 11 F.4th at 1137 (“There is

2. The BIA dismissed Zhang’s appeal based on the adverse credibility determination. Because the BIA did not address the merits of the claims for asylum and withholding of removal, we do not consider the merits of these claims.

See Myers v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 1101, 1113 (9th Cir. 2018) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (quoting Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004))).

3. The denial of CAT protection is not before us because Zhang does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she waived review of the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (deeming forfeited an argument that was not “coherently develop[ed]” (citation omitted)); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a).

PETITION DENIED.