Rong Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 598 F. App'x 554 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONG DI WANG, No. 13-70713
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-574-618
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rong Di Wang, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Wang’s admitted lies to an asylum officer in support of an admittedly
false asylum application that he filed in 1994, Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178-
1181 (9th Cir. 2011), and a significant omission from his declaration in support of
his 2010 asylum application regarding whether he confronted family planning
officials after his wife was sterilized, Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th
Cir. 2011). We reject Wang’s contention that the agency did not consider his
explanation sufficiently. Further, the agency was not compelled to accept Wang’s
explanations for the discrepancies. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. In the absence
of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Wang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and Wang does not point to any other evidence that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China,
his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70713