Xiongming Wang v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIONGMING WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72619
Agency No. A088-276-537
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 13, 2017**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Xiongming Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum and
FILED
NOV 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

withholding of removal. Our appellate jurisdiction rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we DENY the petition.
Wang’s application is governed by the standards of the REAL ID Act. See
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011). We review adverse credibility
determinations for substantial evidence and only reverse the BIA’s decision if the
evidence compels it. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010);
I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
The IJ found inconsistencies, omissions, and implausibilities between
Petitioner’s testimony and his asylum application surrounding, for example, his
nonpayment of the fine and his payment of 180,000 yuan to a “snakehead,” and the
implausibility of Petitioner’s accounts of his confrontation with the family
planning officials. Under the totality of the circumstances, these inconsistencies,
omissions, and implausibilities undermined Petitioner’s veracity and thus
constituted substantial evidence in support of the adverse credibility finding. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044.
As the BIA correctly found, absent credible testimony, Petitioner’s
corroborating evidence was insufficient independently to establish entitlement to
asylum. Petitioner therefore also failed to satisfy his higher burden for showing
2

-- 2 of 3 --

entitlement to withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525
(9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --