United States v. 2020-07-10 | 14-74035 | DENGLIN WANG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENGLIN WANG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-74035

Agency No. A201-192-231

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted July 10, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Denglin Wang, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

*
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

JUL 10 2020

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

2 14-74035
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 significant omissions from Wang’s written statement, in particular his
claims that his wife underwent three forced abortions and forced sterilization and
he had an altercation with family planning officials resulting in a lengthy hospital
stay. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the
circumstances); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 972-74 (9th Cir. 2011)
(omissions from asylum application supported adverse credibility determination).
Wang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. Zamanov, 649 F.3d at
974 (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the
absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
1
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1
Because we uphold the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, we do not
address Wang’s argument that his asylum application was timely.