NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIHONG WANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70435 

Agency No. A099-912-071 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 12, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and CHATIGNY,** District 

Judge.

Lihong Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her application for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Wang asserts 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Robert N. Chatigny, United States District Judge for 

the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

FILED

DEC 10 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

she was persecuted under China’s family planning policies. 

Wang first challenges the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility

determination, which the Board affirmed. We review an adverse credibility 

determination for substantial evidence. Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 

(9th Cir. 1999). The Board based its affirmance on a series of inconsistencies 

between Wang’s testimony and the documentary evidence submitted in support of 

her petition. The IJ gave Wang the opportunity to explain each of the 

inconsistencies and the opportunity to submit corroborating documentation. The IJ 

and the Board determined her explanations were not convincing, and Wang failed 

to submit evidence that would tend to corroborate her testimony. In light of the 

deference owed to the agency’s determination and the multiple opportunities 

provided to cure the identified inconsistencies, we cannot say the record compels a 

contrary result. See id. at 1150; see also Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 

(9th Cir. 2017). We therefore affirm the Board’s adverse credibility determination.

Wang next challenges the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of 

removal. Because we agree with the Board’s conclusion that Wang’s testimony 

was not credible, the question of whether Wang established her eligibility for 

asylum, assuming the credibility of her testimony, is hypothetical and we need not 

answer it. The Board, however, did not consider Wang’s eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal based on the evidence before it, excluding Wang’s own 
3 

testimony. Instead, it only considered Wang’s claims “assuming [her] credibility.” 

We therefore grant the petition and remand to allow the Board to reconsider 

Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. On remand, the Board should

consider whether evidence in the record, aside from Wang’s testimony, is 

sufficient to establish her eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See

Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 890-94 (9th Cir. 2001).

Finally, we affirm the Board’s denial of relief under the Convention Against 

Torture, which it correctly based on the entirety of the record. See Kamalthas v. 

INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN 

PART; REMANDED. Each party shall bear their own costs on appeal.