Xianghong Wei v. Matthew Whitaker

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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

XIANGHONG WEI, No. 14-70696 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-007-804

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.

Xianghong Wei, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*

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).

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 Wei’s testimony and asylum interview as to the reason she went to the hospital in September 2003, whether she hid at her brother’s house during her second pregnancy, and the reason she stopped working in 2000. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Wei’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Wei’s documentary evidence did not overcome the adverse credibility determination or independently support her claims for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Wei’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-70696