NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YIFAN WANG, No. 20-72539
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-881-468
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, McKEOWN, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI,***
Judge.
*
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 Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Yifan Wang, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings supporting the
BIA’s dismissal of an applicant’s request for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the CAT. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013)
(internal citations omitted). We review adverse credibility determinations for
substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010)
(internal citation omitted). We consider “the totality of the circumstances” when
assessing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021)
(en banc). We deny the petition.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts and decisions below, we do not
recount them here. Substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility
determination “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
to the contrary.” Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1681 (2021) (internal
quotation marks omitted). We are not so compelled. Considering all of Petitioner’s
individual circumstances, the BIA reasonably inferred that his testimony included
more than one implausibility and was not credible. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1041
2
(stating credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act must be reasonable given
the applicant’s individual circumstances).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to meet his burdens to
establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner has not
established that he is a refugee through past persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (asylum eligibility); Yali Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that when Petitioners fail to establish
eligibility for asylum, they necessarily fail to meet the greater eligibility burden for
withholding of removal). Petitioner has failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution on religious grounds because the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination is supported by substantial evidence.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner did not qualify for protection
under CAT. Absent credible testimony, the record alone does not compel the
conclusion that Petitioner himself is “more likely than not” to face torture if returned
to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922
(9th Cir. 2006).
PETTION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3