FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CUNWU JIANG, No. 13-73005
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-289-067
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Cunwu Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
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.
Even if Jiang’s asylum claim were timely, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on omissions from Jiang’s and
his wife’s statements as to the circumstances of the family planning officials’ 2006
visit when they took Jiang’s wife to undergo an abortion. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s totality of the
circumstances standard); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th
Cir. 2011) (upholding adverse credibility determination based in part on omissions
which “went to the core of [the petitioner’s] fear of political persecution”). We
lack jurisdiction to consider Jiang’s unexhausted explanation for these omissions.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of
credible testimony, Jiang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on September 25, 2015, has expired.
Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-73005