Yuming Wu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUMING WU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72419
Agency No. A089-896-511
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Yuming Wu, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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 the contradictions in the record and evolving story regarding Wu’s
termination letter and fine receipt. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the “totality of circumstances”). Wu’s
explanations for those contradictions do not compel an opposite finding. See Lata
v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, Wu does not raise any argument challenging the BIA’s finding that
he waived his withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are
deemed abandoned). We lack jurisdiction to consider the contentions regarding
withholding of removal and CAT that Wu makes for the first time in his opening
brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-72419 2

-- 2 of 2 --