United States v. 2020-09-22 | 15-70347 | ZENGQUAN WANG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZENGQUAN WANG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70347

Agency No. A089-903-358

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted September 18, 2020
**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Zengquan Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*
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

SEP 22 2020

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

2 15-70347
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-
40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in the record regarding the circumstances of Wang’s
wife’s second pregnancy and what clinic his wife went to when her pregnancy was
discovered. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility findings are reviewed under the totality
of the circumstances). Wang argues to us that the agency did not provide him with
an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies. However, we lack jurisdiction to
consider his claim because a careful examination of his brief to the agency
demonstrates that he did not raise it before the BIA and it is the type of claimed
due process violation that can be corrected by the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);
Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2013). (“This court may review a
final order of removal only if ‘the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies
available to the alien as of right.’”) In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Wang’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Wang

3 15-70347
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 the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.