NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENGLIN WANG, No. 14-74035 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-192-231 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Denglin 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * 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). 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 based on significant omissions from Wang’s written statement, in particular his claims that his wife underwent three forced abortions and forced sterilization and he had an altercation with family planning officials resulting in a lengthy hospital stay. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 972-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omissions from asylum application supported adverse credibility determination). Wang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974 (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.1 See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 1 Because we uphold the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, we do not address Wang’s argument that his asylum application was timely. 2 14-74035 14-74035 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Denglin Wang v. William Barr 10 July 2020 Agency Unpublished a9cbd1e9618a6540691dc76ab10210aee7cfb4b7
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals