Jing Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Jing Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr.

519 F. App'x 430

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 2013

Docket11-70662

StatusUnpublished

This text of 519 F. App'x 430 (Jing Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jing Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr., 519 F. App'x 430 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jing Dong Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on Zhao’s inconsistent testimony regarding the level of government surveillance she experienced, the implausibility of her obtaining permission to travel to Europe while on bail, and her subsequent volun *431 tary return to China. See id. at 1043 (inconsistencies about events leading up to petitioner’s departure went to the heart of the claim); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1999); Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008) (applicant’s voluntary returns to home country supported adverse credibility determination). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Zhao’s documents did not counteract the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir.2000) (an IJ may reject documentary evidence for specific, cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to that rejection). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We reject Zhao’s contention that the agency violated her due process rights by relying on the expert testimony of the forensic documents examiner. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Jing Dong Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on Zhao’s inconsistent testimony regarding the level of government surveillance she experienced, the implausibility of her obtaining permission to travel to Europe while on bail, and her subsequent volun *431 tary return to China. See id. at 1043 (inconsistencies about events leading up to petitioner’s departure went to the heart of the claim); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1999); Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008) (applicant’s voluntary returns to home country supported adverse credibility determination). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Zhao’s documents did not counteract the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1165 (9th Cir.2000) (an IJ may reject documentary evidence for specific, cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to that rejection). In the absence of credible testimony, Zhao’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

We reject Zhao’s contention that the agency violated her due process rights by relying on the expert testimony of the forensic documents examiner. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 F. App'x 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jing-zhao-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack