FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANLING WANG, No. 11-71716
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-453-768
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yanling Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
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 in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the difference between Wang’s statement and testimony regarding her
alleged past abortion, and the discrepancies in her testimony regarding her
employment at Quilin. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under “totality of the circumstances”). Wang’s explanations, including
memory problems, do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims based on her alleged past abortion fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to consider any argument Wang now makes about a
future fear of sterilization because she did not raise this to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-71716