NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 1 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GUANGMING ZHAI, No. 16-72888 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-734-888 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 19, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: OWENS and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Guangming Zhai (“Zhai”), a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order * 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Zhai challenges the agency’s adverse credibility finding (which resulted in the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal) and the denial of his application for relief under the CAT. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part. We review questions of law de novo, Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). 1. The agency relied on two factors in concluding that Zhai was not credible: (1) the implausibility of his statement that he called the police station more times than there were weeks when he could have done so; and (2) Zhai’s initial failure to detail the beating that occurred in May 2009 during the second interrogation, when he suffered multiple kicks and hits by an electric baton. 2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Zhai’s challenge to the agency’s first ground because he failed to exhaust this argument on appeal before the BIA. Zhai challenged the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, but he did not challenge the agency’s -2- reliance on the police station calls or the IJ’s failure to allow him to explain his statements. See Vizcarra-Ayala v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 870, 873 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ’s decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.” (quoting Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004))); Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.”); see also Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2014) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals