NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHUNZHANG SHENG, No. 15-70030 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-128-777 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Shunzhang Sheng, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination, including inconsistencies within Sheng’s testimony as to who introduced him to Christianity, inconsistencies between Sheng’s testimony and Pastor Lin’s testimony and letter, and the implausibility of certain aspects of Sheng’s claim. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances). Sheng’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Sheng’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Sheng’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Sheng does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-70030 15-70030 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Shunzhang Sheng v. William Barr 10 July 2020 Agency Unpublished c1623e4b27697917e15a772a5004dbdd5756baaf
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals