NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LI WANG, No. 19-70531 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-340-086 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Li Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying 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). standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by 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 adverse credibility determination based on Wang’s omission of her mother’s threat from her original and amended written asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016) (prior omission supported adverse credibility determination where new allegations were more compelling). 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 finding that Wang did not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish her eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, 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). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Wang’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence 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 by or with the consent or 2 19-70531 acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-70531 19-70531 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Li Wang v. William Barr 9 December 2020 Agency Unpublished f46c1f9386c3b272a6958fa61aece6ae80717682
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals