NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YAJUN ZHANG, AKA Xiu Yu Rong, No. 15-72304 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-024-130 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 15, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Yajun Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 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 based on inconsistent testimony regarding when he discussed applying for asylum with his friends and implausible testimony regarding his wife’s forced sterilization. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The Agency’s implausibility findings are supported by evidence in the record and are based on reasonable assumptions, even if other alternative explanations exist.”). Zhang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Zhang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Zhang’s remaining contentions regarding corroboration or the timeliness of his asylum application. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zhang’s CAT 2 15-72304 claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does not point to any other record evidence 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. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72304 15-72304 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Yajun Zhang v. Merrick Garland 22 June 2022 Agency Unpublished 76a78781ad331cad3e8274c5dc72c4dec1b1a418
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals