Summary
noting that plaintiff's parole officer had no "constitutional obligation to provide [plaintiff] with medication, or a prescription, after his release [from prison]."
Summary of this case from Atwood v. BurkeOpinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Argued and Submitted May 6, 1999.
Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Before BROWNING, BEEZER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) conclusion that Zhong Cai Zhou (Zhou) was not credible is supported by substantial evidence. See Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1256 (9th Cir.1992) ("Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."). When Zhou was originally detained by the INS he did not claim that he fled China because he feared future persecution; instead, he stated that he came to the United States to make money. The BIA's finding that the subpoena Zhou submitted to document his father's arrest was "apparently fraudulent" was supported by the opinion of the United States Consulate in Guangzhou Province that the subpoena was "not an acceptable piece of evidence."
The BIA's panel that denied Zhou's petition for asylum and withholding of deportation had three members, but the third member's name, Richard F. Brodsky, was inadvertently omitted from the cover letter due to a clerical error. The INS corrected this omission by supplementing the administrative record.
AFFIRMED.