Zhenbang Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 546 F. App'x 687 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHENBANG WANG, No. 11-73393
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-730-256
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Zhenbang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Wang claims he was persecuted because he photographed Falun Gong
practitioners and collected pro-Falun Gong materials while on a trip in France, and
mailed these materials to himself in China. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies regarding where
Wang saw the Falun Gong practitioners, why he mailed the Falun Gong materials
to China, and the timing of his departure from France, as well as the implausibility
of his account of developing and mailing the photographs. See id. at 1048 (adverse
credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the
circumstances” standard). The agency reasonably rejected Wang’s explanations
for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir.
2007). Without credible testimony, Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Wang’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that
2 11-73393
shows it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73393