Lian Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 551 F. App'x 357 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIAN WANG, No. 11-71474
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-458-652
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Lian 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”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings,
including the agency’s adverse credibility findings. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610
F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Wang’s testimony and documentary evidence
regarding his injuries. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2000)
(inconsistencies between testimony and application regarding injuries petitioner
received during assaults went to heart of claim); Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259
(9th Cir. 2003) (court must affirm adverse credibility finding when it is supported
by at least one reason that goes to heart of claim). We lack jurisdiction to review
Wang’s contention regarding the accuracy of the translation and transcription
because he did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004). Further, Wang’s other explanations do not compel a contrary
result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Wang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
2 11-71474
Finally, Wang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements
the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-71474