Jianshan Wang v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANSHAN WANG; JIANG LI, No. 16-73397
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A099-418-154
A099-418-155
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jianshan Wang and Jiang Li, natives and citizens of China, petition pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum and
denying Wang’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
for Wang based on her submission of counterfeit documents, inconsistencies in her
testimony regarding the date of her arrest, the number of times she reported to the
police, and who mailed her the notarized marriage certificate, as well as
inconsistencies in her testimony and lack of candor regarding her residences in the
United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances); see also Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964-65 (9th
Cir. 2014) (fraudulent document properly considered and adverse credibility
determination supported under the totality of the circumstances). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination for Li based on
an inconsistency regarding whether Li accompanied Wang to speak to the head of
the factory, and lack of detail and evasive testimony regarding his wedding day
and visa application. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; see also Iman v. Barr, 972
F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The lack of detail in an applicant’s testimony
can be a relevant factor for assessing credibility.”). Petitioners’ explanations do
2 16-73397
not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony in this case, petitioners’ asylum
claim and Wang’s withholding of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Wang’s claim was based on the same testimony the 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 she would be tortured in China. See
id. at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73397