FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAIXING WANG, No. 13-72385
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-448-713
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
We grant respondent’s motion to reinstate proceedings.
Laixing 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction 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,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Wang’s vague testimony and inconsistencies between Wang’s asylum
application and his testimony regarding his alleged detentions and employment
termination. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the “totality of circumstances”). Wang’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even if Wang is
Christian and practiced Christianity in the United States, he failed to establish a
well-founded fear of persecution in China. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present compelling objective evidence
demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution.) Thus, Wang’s asylum
claim fails.
2 13-72385
Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Huang v.
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Wang failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72385