FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 16, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JINHUI ZHANG, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9596 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, ∗ Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jinhui Zhang (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, 1 petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, ∗ On March 11, 2021, Merrick B. Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for Robert M. Wilkinson as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because he proceeds pro se, we liberally construe Petitioner’s filings, but “we do not assume the role of advocate.” Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner is not entitled to any of these forms of relief because substantial evidence supports the finding that he did not testify credibly at his individual immigration hearing. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we DENY the petition for review. I. Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of China. He came to the United States in October 2015 without a valid entry document and expressed fear of returning to China. An asylum officer interviewed Petitioner and found his fear to be credible. The government thereafter served Petitioner with a notice to appear, charging him as removable as a noncitizen not in possession of a valid entry document at the time of his application for admission. Petitioner admitted the factual allegations in the notice to appear, conceded the charge of removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. In support of these applications, Petitioner asserted he faced religious persecution because he was arrested for attending an underground Christian church in China and that he was beaten, interrogated, and threatened during his detainment by Chinese officials. An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held an individual hearing at which Petitioner, but not the asylum officer, testified. After the hearing, the IJ found Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and the other evidence presented was insufficient to meet his burden of proof. Although the asylum officer did not testify, the IJ considered the officer’s notes from the interview with Petitioner. Specific reasons for the IJ’s adverse credibility finding included: inconsistencies between …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals