NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNLI WEI, No. 13-74018
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-013-020
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Junli Wei, 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, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Wei’s asylum application that he and his wife
attempted to avoid family planning officials by getting a divorce, and on
inconsistencies between Wei’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the
divorce. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse
credibility determination was supported where petitioners failed to include in
application facts that were crucial to establishing that they were persecuted for
their political opinion); see also Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47 (“Although
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the petitioner’s claim, when an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight.”). Wei’s
explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Wei’s CAT claim
2 13-74018
because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does
not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Wei would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, Wei has waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to
argue it in his brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-74018