T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

Th e H o n o r ab l e Ro b e rtH o l me s Be l l , D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** * D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof M i c hi ga n, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T WE I J E WANG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71748 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 044- 830 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry11, 2013 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: M cK E O W N and M . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B E L L , D i stri ctJudg e. *** W e i j e W a ng pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

aM a r c h 26, 2008, or de rof the B oa r d of Im m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls af firm in g th e I m m ig ra ti o n Ju d g e’s d en ial o f W an g ’s

# FI LED JAN 15 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

appl i c a t i ons f

ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A gai nstT orture. B ec ause the part i es ar e f am i l i arw i th the fa ctual and p roce du ra l hi st ory of thi s c as e, w e r epea ton l y tho se fa ct s nec es saryt o res ol ve the i ss ues r a is e d o n ap p e a l. F o rth e r e a s o n s s ta te d b e lo w , w e d e n yW a n g ’s p e titio n . I . T h e I J’ s A d ve r s e C r e d i b i l i t y D e t e r m i n at i on i s S u p p or t e d b y S u b s t an t i al E v id e n c e . A dv er se cr edi bi l i ty f

i nd i ng s are re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence s ta n d a r d . R i

zk v. H older , 6 2 9 F . 3 d 1 0 8 3 , 1 0 8 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ). A n IJ m u st art i cul at e al egi t i m at e bas i s t o q uest i on the appl i cant ’ s c re di bi l i ty, and m ustoffe r s p e c if ic a n d c o g e n t r e a s o n s f

o ra n ys ta te d d is b e lie f

. See R i ve ra v. Mukasey , 508 F . 3d 12 71 , 12 75 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). U nd erthe R E A L ID A ct , “ tri vi al i ncon si st enci es th a t u n d e rth e to ta l c ir c u m s ta n c e s h a v e n o b e a r in g o n ap e titio n e r ’s v e r a c itys h o u ld no tform the basi s of an adv er se cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on . ” Sh restha v. H older , 590 F . 3d 1034, 1044 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . B uts i gni f i c a nti nc ons i s t e nc i e s , r e ga r dl e s s of w h eth er th ey g o t o th e h earto f th e ap p l i can t ’ s cl ai m , can su st ai n an IJ’ s ad v erse c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n u n d e rth e to ta lityo f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I

d. a t1039- 45 ( d is c u s s in g R E A L I D A c t s ta n d a r d s g o v e rn in g a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n s ) .3

H er e, th e I J c o rr ec tl y n o ted a n u m b ero f m ater ial i n co n sisten cies in W an g ’s t es t i m on y. F or i nst ance , the go vernm entprod uced un contra di ct ed evi dence that W ang o bt ai ned the pass po rthe used t o i l l egal l y e nt erthe U ni t ed S t at es i n January 20 03 . Y eti n spi t e of W ang’ s c l ai m ed fe arof pers ec ut i on , W ang w ai t ed m ore than ay e a rto ap p lyf

o rato u r is t v is ato e n te rth e U n ite d S ta te s , a n d d id n o t a c tu a lly com e t o the U ni t ed S t at es un t i l A ug ust20 04 . T he IJal so re as on abl y c on cl ud ed th a t W a n g ’s te s tim o n y w a s s u s p ic io u s g iv e n its la c ko f s p e c if ic ity , p a rtic u la r ly r e g a r d in g W a n g ’s f

o r c e d ab o rtio n c la im . Se e Si ngh- Kaurv . I . N . S. , 183 F . 3d 1147, 11 53 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( approv i ng IJ ’ s f i nd i ng thatan appl i cant ’ s t es t i m on y w as suspi ci ou s gi ven i t s l ac k o f s peci fi ci ty) . W ang d evot ed on e per funct ory s ent ence o f h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n to h is w if e ’s f o r c e d ab o rtio n , a n d w a s s im ila r lyu n ab le to p r o v id e s u f

f ic ie n t d e ta ils ab o u t h is c la im s o f p o litic a l c o rru p tio n . F i na l l y , the I Jpr ope r l y f aul t e d W a ng f

orf a i l i ng t o pr ovi de c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e . T he I Jtw i c e w a rne d pe t i t i one ra nd hi s c ouns e l of the ne e d t o pr ovi de c o rr o b o r a tiv e e v id e n c e , a n d W a n g ’s h e a r in g w a s c o n tin u e d f o rn e a r lyay e a rin o r d e rf o rW a n g to g a th e rs u c h e v id e n c e . W a n g d id n o t a v a il h im s e lf o f th is opportuni ty , how e ve r , a nd the I Jr e a s onabl yc onc l ude d tha tW a ng’ s e xpl a na t i ons f o rh is f a ilu r e to c o rr o b o r a te w e r e u n c o n v in c in g . T h u s W a n g f a ile d to c a rryh is b u r d e n o f

p r o o f .4

I I . S u b s t an t i alE vi d e n c e S u p p or t s t h e I J’ s F i n d i n g t h at W an g d i d n ot Es t a bl i s h a N e x us Be t w e e n hi s A r r e s t s a nd a St a t ut o r i l y Pr o t e c t e d G r o und. I n or de rt o be e l i gi bl e f

ora s y l um , pa s tora nt i c i pa t e d pe r s e c ut i on m us tbe “o n a c c o u n t o f

” o n e o rm o r e o f

th e f iv e g r o u n d s e n u m e r a te d in 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) . See B ag hdasaryan v. H older , 59 2 F . 3d 10 18 , 10 23 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). T he appl i cantm ustprov i de som e e vi dence, di re ctor ci rc um st ant i al , that the pe r s e c ut orw a s orw oul d be m ot i va t e d t o pe r s e c ut e hi m be c aus e of hi s a c tua l or im p u te ds ta tu s o rb e lie f . Se e Sangha v . I

. N . S. , 10 3 F . 3d 14 82 , 14 86 -87 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . H e r e , the I Jr e a s onabl y c onc l ude d tha tW a ng f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h a nyl i nk betw ee n h i s s po ra di c c om pl ai nt s abo uthi s f ac t ory s up ervi sor and w i der go vernm entcorrup t i on . O nl y aw hi st l ebl ow er ’ s e xp osure of gov e rnm e nt c orrupt i on “ m a y c ons t i tut e pol i t i c a l a c t i vi tys uf f i c i e ntt o f

orm the ba s i s of pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” G r av a v . I . N . S. , 205 F . 3d 1177, 1181 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ; s e e al

s o Koz ul i n v . I

. N . S. , 218 F . 3d 1112, 1115- 16 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ T ] he m e r e pr e s e nc e of s om e pol i t i c a l e l e m e ntdoe s notr e qui r e the c onc l us i on th a t s o m e m a ltr e a tm e n t w a s o n a c c o u n t o f p o litic a l o p in io n .” ) . T h e I Jp r o p e r ly f ound tha tW a ng’ s c om pl a i nt s aboutc orrupt i on a thi s f a c t oryw e r e l i ke l ynot pol i t i c a l l y m ot i va t e d, a nd tha tpe t i t i one r ’ s s ubs e que nta rr e s tc oul d m or e l i ke l ybe5

e xpl a i ne d by W a ng’ s ow n us e of vi ol e nc e a ga i ns tas e c ur i tygua r d. W e f i nd no r e a s o n to d is tu rb th e s e f in d in g s o n ap p e a l. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.