FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JING WANG, No. 07-70887
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-403-339
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Jing 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 decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
The immigration judge also denied Wang’s request for protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture, but Wang has not challenged that denial. We review
the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d
1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies regarding the date of the protest rally, when Wang
alleged the police beat him and detained him, go to the heart of his claim that he
was targeted for his adherence to Falun Gong. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d
1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that discrepancies were significant because
they involved one of the few interactions between the petitioner and the police).
Moreover, every newspaper article in the record, each from a reputable news
organization, describes the April 25, 1999 rally as peaceful.
The record does not compel a conclusion that Wang testified credibly. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). In the absence of credible
evidence, Wang has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2