FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONG WANG, No. 12-72239
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-052-711
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Dong Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 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 the petition for review.
With respect to Wang’s claim based on past events in China, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on
inconsistencies in Wang’s testimony and written statement regarding whether the
cell leader beat him and whether his son was present at the baptism. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under totality of circumstances). The
agency reasonably rejected Wang’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
based on the alleged past harms in China fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
With respect to Wang’s fear of harm based on his current status as a
practicing Christian, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Wang did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear was “too speculative” under
circumstances of case); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n
2 12-72239
applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when
similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without
incident”). Accordingly, Wang’s asylum claim based on his status as a practicing
Christian fails. Wang’s withholding of removal claim also fails because he failed
to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Wang did
not establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.18.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-72239