Kezhan Jiang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEZHAN JIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72235
Agency No. A088-089-137
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kezhan Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
DEC 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act
governing adverse credibility determinations. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny the petition for review.
Among other things, the BIA found Jiang not credible based on an
inconsistency between Jiang’s testimony and supporting documentation regarding
whether his wife underwent an abortion in December 1999, and an inconsistency
regarding the year he began protesting the government’s seizure of his land.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s credibility determination. See id. at 1048
(adverse credibility finding was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances).
We lack jurisdiction to review Jiang’s contentions that his nervousness and lack of
education caused him to testify inaccurately because Jiang did not exhaust these
claims before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not raised to the agency). Jiang’s
remaining explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Jiang’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
12-72235 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Jiang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
the BIA found not credible, and Jiang 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 a public official in China. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
12-72235 3

-- 3 of 3 --