United States v. 2020-04-20 | 13-73423 | HUAZHEN WU V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUAZHEN WU,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 13-73423

Agency No. A099-739-485

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Huazhen Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

*
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

APR 20 2020

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

2 13-73423
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
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Wu’s statements to an asylum officer and her
testimony regarding when she began practicing Christianity and when she was
baptized. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the
totality of circumstances”). Wu’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, in this case, Wu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Wu’s contentions regarding the
merits of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because it
was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Wu does not point to any
other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not
she 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 DENIED.