FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 12 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENJING YU, No. 15-70910
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-444-283
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Wenjing Yu, a native and citizen of China who alleges
persecution on account of her religion, seeks review of a final order of removal
issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). The BIA dismissed
Petitioner’s appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See Abebe
v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (explaining
substantial evidence standard); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that, for the
court to overturn a factual finding, the record must compel a contrary conclusion).
For example, Petitioner introduced a fraudulent identification card; the
identification card and the household registration card contradicted each other
concerning the date when Petitioner began to live at a particular address (1994
versus 1996); and Petitioner testified falsely that she lived in California, even
though she had been living in Nevada when she testified about living in California.
Those are permissible grounds to disbelieve Petitioner, and we are not compelled
to credit her testimony as true. In view of the adverse credibility finding, the BIA
permissibly ruled that Petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal
fail.
2. With respect to Petitioner’s CAT claim, the BIA permissibly concluded
that the record evidence other than Petitioner’s disbelieved testimony was
insufficient to carry Petitioner’s burden of proof. The country condition evidence
2
does not compel a conclusion that Petitioner would be detained and tortured if she
practiced her religion upon returning to China.
3. Finally, we decline to consider Petitioner’s due process claim concerning
the report about the authenticity of her identification card. Petitioner expressly
withdrew her objection to the report at the agency level, and exhaustion of a claim
is mandatory and jurisdictional. Vargas v. INS, 831 F.2d 906, 907–08 (9th Cir.
1987).
Petition DENIED.
3