United States v. 2020-12-09 | 19-70531 | LI WANG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LI WANG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70531

Agency No. A206-340-086

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Li Wang, 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, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the

*
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 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-70531
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 adverse credibility determination based on
Wang’s omission of her mother’s threat from her original and amended written
asylum application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable
under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d
1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2016) (prior omission supported adverse credibility
determination where new allegations were more compelling). 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 finding that Wang did
not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish her eligibility for
relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s
documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, in
the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Wang’s CAT
claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Wang
does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that
it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or

3 19-70531
acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.