Jian Wang v. Matthew Whitaker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 3, 2018
• Docket: 17-73302
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAN WANG, No. 17-73302

Petitioner, Agency No. A206-345-023

v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Jian Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8

* 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). 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 the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and documentary evidence as

to the date his father died and the number of times he was interrogated. See id. at

1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of

circumstances”). Wang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In his opening brief, Wang does

not challenge the agency’s determination that in the absence of credible testimony,

his documentary evidence did not establish eligibility for asylum. Thus, in the

absence of credible testimony, in this case, Wang’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013).

In his opening brief, Wang fails to challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT

claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues

not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 17-73302