Gangguang Wei v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GANGGUANG WEI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73008
Agency No. A088-277-041
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gangguang Wei, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
MAY 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-73008 2
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act, Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and de novo due process claims,
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Wei’s
testimony was not credible based on discrepancies between his testimony and
declaration, including the inconsistency regarding the length of his detention. See
Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (discrepancy between
testimony and declaration supported adverse credibility finding); Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (explanations were insufficient).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Wei failed to establish a
claim for asylum or withholding of removal based on his documentary evidence
alone. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir. 2000) (“An applicant bears
the burden of proof with respect to eligibility for asylum and withholding of
deportation.”). In the absence of credible testimony, Wei’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-73008 3
Finally, we reject Wei’s contention that the IJ failed to give proper weight to
the corroborating evidence and denied him a fair and impartial trial. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice
to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --