Yuxiang Wang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUXIANG WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72690
Agency No. A099-967-724
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yuxiang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-72690 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse
credibility findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies in Wang’s testimony regarding whether she had an IUD
inserted and removed after the birth of her first child. See id. at 1046-47; see also
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA not compelled to
accept petitioner’s explanation for inconsistencies). Further, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Wang failed to carry her evidentiary
burden of proof. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2011). In
the absence of credible testimony her asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Because Wang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not
credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely
than not she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

09-72690 3
Finally, we do not consider the documents attached to Wang’s opening brief
because our review is limited to the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79
F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --