NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOZHEN WENG, No. 14-72848
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-593-455
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Xiaozhen Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on an omission of Weng’s father’s eye injury, and inconsistencies regarding
Weng’s passport, an alleged guarantee letter, and the conditions of Weng’s release
from detention. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the “totality of circumstances.”). Weng’s explanations for the
inconsistencies and omission do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that, even if Weng is Christian and practiced Christianity
in the United States, she 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, Weng’s asylum claim fails.
Because Weng failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Huang
v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
2 14-72848
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72848