FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIQIN WANG, No. 08-72459
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-055-381
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Xiqin Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ found Wang not credible for a number of reasons, including the
implausibility that she would administer medicine she knew to be unqualified to
her son, the inconsistency between her asylum application and her testimony
regarding whether she was convicted for anti-government activity and disturbing
the social order, and her failure to produce reasonably obtainable corroborating
evidence. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). In the absence of credible
testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Wang does not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by
argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72459