FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BING XIA WANG, No. 11-73048
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-452-289
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Bing Xia 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his 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. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination,
including inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and household register. See
Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (court must uphold adverse
credibility determination so long as one identified ground is supported and goes to
the heart of the claim). The agency was not compelled to accept Wang’s
explanation for the discrepancy. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th
Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that
Wang’s claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution was undermined by his
return travel to China. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008).
In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Wang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and Wang does not point to any evidence that compels the conclusion
that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT
claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
2 11-73048
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Wang’s contention that the IJ
violated due process by relying on Wang’s failure to provide sufficient
corroborating evidence, because he did not raise this contention to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73048