Lina Wang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINA WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70175
Agency No. A088-328-907
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Lina Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70175
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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.
As to Wang’s claim of past harm, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Wang’s
testimony and written declaration regarding the location of her arrest. 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wang did
not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, because even under a
disfavored group analysis, Wang did not show sufficient individualized risk. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[S]ome evidence of
individualized risk is necessary for the petitioner to succeed.”). Further, on this
record, Wang failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in
China. See id. at 1060-62 (discussion of the standard for establishing a pattern or
practice of persecution). Thus, Wang’s asylum claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70175
In this case, because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Wang failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider the materials Wang references in her opening brief that
are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --