Xiongming Wang v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XIONGMING WANG, No. 12-72619 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-276-537 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 13, 2017** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Xiongming Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and * 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). withholding of removal. Our appellate jurisdiction rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we DENY the petition. Wang’s application is governed by the standards of the REAL ID Act. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence and only reverse the BIA’s decision if the evidence compels it. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010); I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The IJ found inconsistencies, omissions, and implausibilities between Petitioner’s testimony and his asylum application surrounding, for example, his nonpayment of the fine and his payment of 180,000 yuan to a “snakehead,” and the implausibility of Petitioner’s accounts of his confrontation with the family planning officials. Under the totality of the circumstances, these inconsistencies, omissions, and implausibilities undermined Petitioner’s veracity and thus constituted substantial evidence in support of the adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. As the BIA correctly found, absent credible testimony, Petitioner’s corroborating evidence was insufficient independently to establish entitlement to asylum. Petitioner therefore also failed to satisfy his higher burden for showing 2 entitlement to withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION DENIED. 3 12-72619 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Xiongming Wang v. Jefferson Sessions 24 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 7139614c9f942b387f10aac3100a83b5fb90f913

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals