NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FULIANG WEN, No. 15-71414
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-198-889
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Fuliang Wen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under 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 inconsistencies between Wen’s testimony and the testimony of his two
witnesses. For example, Wen and Qiu’s testimony differed regarding where they
first met, and Wen contradicted Zhang regarding the preparation of Zhang’s letter.
See id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the
circumstances). Given their similarities, substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s analysis of the reliability and authenticity of the four letters submitted by
Wen. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738-40 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial
evidence review is a highly deferential standard). Further, Wen failed to produce
reliable corroborating evidence of his church attendance in Fremont, California.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047-48 (a reasonable trier of fact would not be
compelled to conclude that corroborating evidence was unavailable). Wen’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for
inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, Wen’s asylum and
2 15-71414
withholding of removal claims fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th
Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Wen’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Wen does not
point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more
likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to China. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71414