NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOXING WANG, No. 14-72942
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-559-932
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Xiaoxing 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014), and review de novo due
process claims, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Wang’s changing and inconsistent statements as to the manner and
number of contacts he had with the family planning director regarding his wife
prior to Wang’s arrest, and based on the IJ’s observations as to his demeanor. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency’s adverse
credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”); see
also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (substantial evidence
supported adverse credibility determination based in part on IJ’s observations
about petitioner’s demeanor on cross-examination). We reject Wang’s contention
that the agency ignored his explanation as to his contacts with the family planning
director. Further, the record does not support Wang’s contentions that the agency
failed to consider his corroborative evidence. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary
evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support
2 14-72942
claim). In the absence of credible testimony in this case, Wang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Jiang, 754 F.3d at 740.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72942