Hao Wang v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAO WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72573
Agency No. A087-845-701
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hao Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72573
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial
evidence, 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.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on
an inconsistency between Wang’s testimony and her documentary evidence as to
whether she was arrested with the authors of the affidavits. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d
at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”); see also Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2021) (BIA may afford substantial weight to inconsistencies that bear directly
on petitioner’s claim of persecution). Wang’s explanation does not compel a
contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Wang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding
standard); see also Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014)
(applicant’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support
claim).
We do not address Wang’s contentions as to the merits of her claims because
the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72573
657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we
consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection because
Wang’s claim was based on the same testimony found not credible, and Wang does
not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more
likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to China. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
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, 963-64
(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --