NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

she was persecuted under China’s family planning policies.

Wang first challenges t he 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 seri es 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 ide ntified inconsistencies
, we cannot say the record compels a

contrary result

. See id. at 1150; s ee also Wang v. Sessions , 861 F.3d 1003, 100 7
(9th Cir. 2017). We therefore affirm the Board’s adverse credibility determination.

Wang next challenges the Board’ s denial of asyl um 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 hyp otheti cal 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 own3

testimony. I nstead, it only considered Wang’s claims “assuming [her] cre dibility.”

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 est ablish 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 r ecord. 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.