United States v. 2020-08-10 | 17-70324 | CHENGYONG WENG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHENGYONG WENG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-70324

Agency No. A205-183-796

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Chengyong Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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).
FILED

AUG 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-70324
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Weng’s testimony and documentary evidence as
to when he began planning to travel to the United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Weng’s
explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,
Weng’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Weng’s contentions as to withholding of
removal and CAT relief because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.