Yulin Wang v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 27 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YULIN WANG, No. 11-71208
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-401-948
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA and OWENS, Circuit Judges and SESSIONS,*** District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Yulin Wang petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petition.
Wang, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), admits that he
overstayed his tourist visa but argues that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Wang claims to be avoiding persecution in
the PRC on the basis of his resistance to the country’s one-child policy, and for his
Buddhist religion. The IJ, as affirmed by the BIA without opinion, determined that
Wang did not offer credible evidence.
When the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s
decision as the final agency action. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th
Cir. 2006); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii). We review legal questions de novo
and factual findings for substantial evidence. Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998
(9th Cir. 2013). An adverse credibility finding is also reviewed for substantial
evidence. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2004). The
substantial evidence standard is “extremely deferential: administrative findings of
fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
2 11-71208
conclude to the contrary.” Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.
2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Wang filed his applications after May 11, 2005, the REAL ID Act
governs the IJ’s credibility determination. “Under the REAL ID Act, the IJ may
base an adverse credibility determination on any relevant factor that, considered in
light of the totality of the circumstances, can reasonably be said to have a ‘bearing
on a petitioner's veracity.'” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010)). “[E]ven minor
inconsistencies that have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may constitute the
basis for an adverse credibility determination.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079,
1089 (9th Cir. 2011).
Wang’s testimony and evidence were plagued by inconsistencies and
implausibilities. Wang at first testified that he obtained a passport prior to his
arrest and detention for hosting a religious gathering. He later conceded that he
obtained the passport shortly after his arrest, and gave varying accounts as to how
he was able to obtain travel documentation so soon after his detention. Wang
offered little support of either present religious affiliations, and the evidence of his
identity and employment histories was inconsistent. The government has been
unable to verify the authenticity of much of Wang’s documentation, and the
3 11-71208
testimony about when and how Wang obtained those documents was again
inconsistent. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wang was not
a credible witness. The other evidence in the record does not compel us to
overturn the IJ’s determination that Wang failed to carry his burden of proving
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports the denial of Wang’s application for asylum and withholding of
removal. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's denial of CAT protection.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wang’s testimony was not
credible, and country condition reports in the record do not compel a contrary
conclusion either as to Wang’s credibility or his ineligibility for CAT relief. Id. at
1157.
Petition DENIED.
4 11-71208