Wan Jun Yang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAN JUN YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73993
Agency No. A099-965-270
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Wan Jun Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
* 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).
FILED
MAR 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-73993
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, applying
the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
As to Yang’s family planning claim, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s conclusion that Yang failed to demonstrate “other resistance” to China’s
coercive family planning program. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.
2014). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to this claim.
As to Yang’s religion-based claim, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination in light of the inconsistencies between
Yang’s testimony and documentary evidence regarding his employment and post-
arrest termination. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Yang’s
explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. See Zamanov
v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). In the absence of credible
testimony, Yang’s religion-based asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Yang’s CAT

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-73993
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government for any reason if
returned to China. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --