NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XIULING ZHANG, No. 15-73619 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-324-692 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 18, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and AMON,*** District Judge. Xiuling Zhang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to uphold the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Having granted the parties’ joint motion to submit on their briefing, the panel decides this case without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). *** The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny Zhang’s petition. Zhang, a Chinese citizen, testified that she converted to Christianity in 2006. She came to the United States legally in July 2007 and willingly returned to China without incident in August 2007. In September 2007, Zhang says she was arrested in China while attending a house church gathering. According to Zhang, the Chinese police detained her for seven days and interrogated and physically abused her. In October 2007, Zhang lawfully re-entered the United States but overstayed her visa. In February 2008, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Zhang conceded removability and filed the applications that are the subject of this petition. She claims that if she returns to China, she will be arrested and likely tortured for practicing Christianity. An immigration judge found Zhang’s testimony not credible and denied her requests for relief. Zhang appealed, but the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the immigration judge and dismissed her appeal. Zhang filed the present petition for review of the Board’s dismissal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The Board issued its own decision but relied on the immigration judge’s decision, so we review both decisions. See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). Because both the immigration judge’s decision to deny all relief sought by 2 Zhang and the Board’s affirmance of that decision rest on the determination that Zhang was not credible, “[t]he central question in this case is whether substantial evidence supports the . . . adverse credibility determination.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). An applicant’s testimony is not presumed credible. Id. Instead, the immigration judge can assess credibility by “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,” including “the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account” and “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Iman, 972 F.3d at 1064. “The agency’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals