SHUNZHANG SHENG, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: July 10, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Timothy Bo Stanton, Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
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 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.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.