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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEI WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70003
Agency No. A201-052-331
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Lei Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
* 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).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70003
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 inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and documentary evidence
regarding his conversion to Christianity, conditions of his release from jail, and his
contact with former church members. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
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). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Wang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156
(9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Wang’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does
not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not Wang would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Wang’s argument in his opening brief as to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70003
being nervous during his hearing because it was not raised to the agency. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust
issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --