FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEI WANG; JUAN ZHEN YE, No. 08-73079
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-177-751
A098-177-752
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Fei Wang and Juan Zhen Ye, natives and citizens of China, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners filed their asylum
applications within a reasonable period of time given any changed circumstances.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.
2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, their asylum claim fails.
With respect to petitioners’ claim of religious persecution, the IJ found
petitioners not credible for several reasons, including implausibilities regarding
Wang’s “underground” house church, as well as internal inconsistencies within
Ye’s testimony and/or inconsistencies between her testimony and application
regarding her church attendance, residence, and employment while allegedly in
hiding in China. In light of the IJ’s findings, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040-44
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s
“totality of the circumstances”). Accordingly, their withholding of removal claim
fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 08-73079
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and they point to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of their CAT claim based on their
religious activities. See id. at 1156-57.
With respect to petitioners’ claim of persecution on account of the birth of
their United States citizen son, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding
that petitioners have not shown a clear probability of persecution. See Ramadan,
479 F.3d at 658; see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of petitioners’
CAT claim because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they
will be tortured in China based on the birth of their United States citizen son.
Accordingly, their CAT claim fails. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-
68 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ claim of a deficient
translation, because petitioners failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Huang v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.
2008) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-73079