Jianli Wang v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANLI WANG, No. 15-72863
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-889-973
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jianli Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and documentary evidence
regarding his point of entry, omission from his declaration regarding the conditions
of Wang’s supervised release, and demeanor. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d
1149, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving special deference to findings based on
demeanor); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Wang’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Wang’s
corroborative evidence does not independently support his claim for relief. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). 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).
Wang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
2 15-72863
agency found not credible, and Wang 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 of China. Id. at
1157.
We reject Wang’s contention that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to
prevail on due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72863