Wang v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 25-1872
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHEZHE WANG, No. 25-1872 Agency No. Petitioner, A213-200-932 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Zhezhe 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 (“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). 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 between Wang’s testimony and credible fear interview

regarding the number of police who beat him and type of baton used, and the

omissions regarding his wife’s church attendance, arrest and release. See id. at

1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of the

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

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).

We reject as unsupported by the record Wang’s contention that the BIA used

conclusory and general language in upholding the IJ’s finding. Petitioner’s

contention that the IJ improperly relied on his credible fear transcript is not

properly before the court because petitioner did not raise it before the BIA. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies must be exhausted); see also

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is not

jurisdictional).

Thus, 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)

(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding

2 25-1872 standard).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-1872