FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIHUA YANG, No. 12-72555
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-850-796
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jihua Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). Our
*
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).
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.
The agency found Yang failed to meet his burden of proof for asylum and
withholding of removal because he was not credible and he failed to corroborate
his claims. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on the inconsistency in the record regarding whether Yang
had knowledge of the circumstances of his fellow church members after his release
from detention, and Yang’s omission from his declaration that police continued to
look for him after he departed China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see also
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility finding
supported where omissions “went to core of [petitioner’s] alleged fear”). The
agency considered Yang’s explanations and was not compelled to accept them.
See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 974. We reject Yang’s contention that the agency failed
to consider the totality of circumstances. We lack jurisdiction to consider Yang’s
contentions regarding corroboration because he failed to raise them before the BIA.
2 12-72555
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Apart from his
unexhausted contentions, Yang does not otherwise challenge the agency’s finding
that he failed to corroborate his claims. Thus, Yang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Finally, Yang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony that the agency found not credible, and Yang does not point to any other
evidence in the record that compels the finding it is more likely than not he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government if
returned. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-72555