FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIJUN WANG, No. 12-73698
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-723-723
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Shijun Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
With respect to Wang’s claim based on her alleged forced abortion,
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based on the
omission of the abortion from her asylum application. See Zamanov v. Holder,
649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account
of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”). With
respect to Wang’s religious persecution claim, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that she failed to carry her evidentiary burden of proof.
See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth analysis
IJ must undertake before relying on lack of corroborative evidence). Accordingly,
Wang’s asylum claim fails.
Because she failed to establish eligibility for asylum, Wang necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at
1094 n.17; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 12-73698
Further, Wang’s CAT claim also fails because she has not established that it
is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. See Ren,
648 F.3d at 1094 n.17.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Wang’s arguments that she is a
member of a disfavored group or that she faces persecution or torture as a result of
leaving China illegally, because she did not raise these issues before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Similarly, we lack
jurisdiction to review Wang’s unexhausted claim that she received ineffective
assistance from her former attorney. See Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815-16
(9th Cir. 2007) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be raised in a motion
to reopen before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73698