NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHANGLIANG ZHU, No. 16-70527 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-183-777 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and ALSUP,** District Judge. Changliang Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Zhu alleges he was * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable William Alsup, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. persecuted in China due to his Christian religion.1 The facts are familiar to the parties and are thus not repeated here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, including adverse credibility determinations. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Where, as here, the BIA “relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons” but “did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion” in reviewing the IJ’s adverse credibility finding for clear error, we “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Zhu filed his application after May 11, 2005, we apply the credibility and corroboration standards set forth in the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. Both the IJ and BIA adequately identified inconsistencies and implausibilities in Zhu’s testimony and application. For example, Zhu filed an asylum application based on an alleged fear of religious persecution during a time period when he stopped 1 Zhu does not challenge the BIA’s finding regarding his political persecution claim. The issue is therefore deemed waived. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[B]ecause Rizk did not raise his withholding-of-removal and CAT claim in his opening brief, we deem those issues waived.”). 2 16-70527 practicing his religion and was considering returning to China. And, despite Zhu’s claim that after he left China, police came to look for him on three separate occasions and threatened his wife with arrest if he did not return, his wife remains in China without incident and Zhu remains in daily contact with her. As such, the record does not compel a reversal. Moreover, even assuming Zhu’s testimony was otherwise credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Zhu failed to meet his burden of proof to adequately corroborate his claims. The IJ put Zhu ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals