Gang Wu 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RA/Research 06-72237
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GANG WU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72237
Agency No. A097-329-722
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gang Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 06-72237 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Li v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Wu’s second asylum application of the hunger strike
which took place during his third detention. See id. Wu failed to adequately
explain this discrepancy when given the opportunity and it goes to the heart of his
claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the IJ
had reason to question Wu’s credibility, the IJ reasonably took into account Wu’s
failure to provide corroborating evidence in support of his claim of persecution.
See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Wu’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, because Wu’s CAT claim is based on the same statements the
agency found not credible, and he does not point to other evidence to show it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --