Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0845-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CAO WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    John Blakeley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nehal Kamani, Oil, Emily Anne Rad-ford, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cao 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from Wang’s asylum application of her interrogations and beating by the Chinese police, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and Wang’s failure to explain these omissions when given the opportunity, see Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2005). 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.