Hegong Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 337 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEGONG WANG, No. 13-70089
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-732-334
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hegong Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application 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 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).
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 review de novo claims of due process violations.
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Wang’s testimony regarding the location of his church in the United
States, and the IJ’s negative demeanor finding. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; see
also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“We give ‘special
deference’ to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor.”). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wang’s witness and
documentary evidence failed to sufficiently rehabilitate his testimony or
independently establish his claim for relief, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2014). 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).
Wang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Wang does not point to any other evidence in the
2 13-70089
record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official in China. See id., 348 F.3d
at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Wang’s claim that the IJ pre-judged his case or was
predisposed to discredit his testimony. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70089