Zhou v. Blanche

── Zhou v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 25-2647 CHANGYONG ZHOU; X. Z., Agency Nos. Petitioners, A246-445-969 A246-445-970 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 30, 2026** Before: RAWLINSON, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges; Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson; Dissent by Judge Desai. Petitioners Changyong Zhou and his minor daughter are natives and citizens of China. They petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of Zhou’s applications for asylum, * 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). 1 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. When the BIA “conducts its own review of the evidence and law, rather than adopting the [Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”)] decision, our ‘review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Following this standard, we uphold the IJ’s and the BIA’s findings “if supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record.’” Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)). “To prevail, Petitioner must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and decisions are erroneous.” Id. “[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)). Under the REAL ID Act, an adverse credibility determination may be made after considering “the totality of circumstances, and all relevant factors.” Id. at 1040 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). This may include consideration of “the 2 consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “[A]ny inconsistency” may be considered, and inconsistencies need not “go to the heart” of a petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility determination. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043; 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Here, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on (1) the inconsistency in Zhou’s testimony regarding the sequence of events following his 2014 arrest, (2) the omission in his testimony regarding the conditions following his release from custody after his 2022 arrest, and (3) Zhou’s testimony that he did not know the reason for on