NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIMING WAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70637 

Agency No. A208-825-692 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 14, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge.

Petitioner Jiming Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of 

an order entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAY 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of 

removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252, and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Petitioner admits that she intentionally misrepresented her employment on three 

separate visa applications, as well as misrepresenting her income on her December 

2010 visa application. She also stated in her 2014 visa application that she 

planned to travel with a tour group, when in fact she deviated from the tour to visit 

her U.S. citizen sister. Although her sister was the person who told her she could 

apply for asylum in the United States, Petitioner failed to mention her sister in her 

original asylum application, instead stating that she had only one brother, who was 

living in China. Under the REAL ID Act, deliberate deception “always counts as 

substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding,” even if the truth 

“turn[s] out to be irrelevant.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 

2011). And the exception to that rule does not apply here because Petitioner was 

not “a genuine refugee escaping persecution” at the time she made the 

misrepresentations on her visa applications. See id. (quoting Akinmade v. INS, 196 

F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 1999)). 
3 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Petitioner’s 

story was inherently implausible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). She claimed

that she left China seeking freedom to practice Christianity, yet she voluntarily 

moved from California, where she attended a Mandarin-speaking church, to a 

remote farm in Hawai’i, where she does not attend church. Petitioner could not 

explain how she otherwise practices her religion. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 

738, 743 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that petitioner’s behavior undermined his stated 

fear of persecution). Moreover, Petitioner’s claim that she flew roundtrip between 

Hawai’i and Los Angeles for a second baptism was implausible given her alleged 

financial insecurity. Petitioner “was given an opportunity to explain the[se]

inconsistencies and implausibilities,” but her explanations “were unconvincing.” 

See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. 

denied, 141 S. Ct. 664 (2020). Far from being speculative, then, the agency’s 

reasoning was amply supported by the record. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 

977 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).

Because substantial evidence thus supports the adverse credibility 

determination, the Court “must give no weight to [Petitioner’s] testimony.” 

Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014). And without that 

testimony, “the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to carry her burden 
4 

of establishing eligibility for relief.” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th 

Cir. 2017).

1

The petition for review is DENIED.

1 Petitioner’s argument that the IJ did not adequately consider certain corroborating 

evidence was not sufficiently raised before the BIA, so we lack jurisdiction to 

review it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Similarly, 

because Petitioner does not independently challenge the denial of CAT protection,

she has waived any such claim. See Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 

889 (9th Cir. 2018).