NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEI WANG, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72316 

Agency No. A205-773-602 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 18, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and AMON,*** District 

Judge.

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

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

* 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 Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Wang states that he is a Christian 

and fears that, if he is returned to China, he will be arrested for violating his release 

conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Wang’s 

petition.

1. Wang challenges the BIA’s affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) 

adverse credibility determination. “We review factual findings, including adverse 

credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 

1064 (9th Cir. 2020). “The agency’s ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id.

(quoting Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016)).

The IJ found that Wang was not credible based on his demeanor, omissions 

in his in-court testimony, inconsistencies between his written statement and incourt testimony, and lack of responsiveness to questions. The IJ noted that, when 

asked how he was baptized in Taiwan, Wang said he forgot. When asked about his 

practices when he returned to China, Wang gave a vague answer and said that his 

teacher was Lin, but then corrected his answer to Zhu and said that he didn’t know 

anyone with the name of Lin. However, Wang’s written statement named the 

pastor in Taiwan who baptized him as Lin. In his written statement, Wang 

recounted that, while detained following his arrest, he had “two steel tubes tied in 

the form of a cross tied around his neck and was placed in the yard and that it was 
3 

cold,” but Wang could not recall this in his testimony. Also, in his testimony

before the IJ, Wang failed to mention that he was required to report weekly to the 

police. Although Wang claimed that he was baptized in the United States by 

Pastor Chui through submergence in water, when asked, Wang could not 

remember the significance of being baptized by full submersion. 

The BIA found that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by

Wang’s demeanor, inconsistent testimony, and omissions. In particular, the BIA

noted that Wang failed to provide “reasonably expected details,” had offered 

inconsistent testimony regarding the conditions placed on him after his release, and 

failed to plausibly explain how he was able to obtain a replacement passport after 

his first passport was confiscated on his return from Taiwan. 

Wang argues that the details omitted from his testimony were included in his 

asylum statement, the details concerning his baptism in Taiwan and his 

relationship with Pastor Lin are “tangential,” and that his “ability to obtain a 

replacement passport is not a cogent ground to impeach his credibility.” However, 

the issue is not whether there is substantial evidence to support Wang’s

contentions, but whether he has shown that the record, as a whole, compels a 

finding that he is credible. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). 

He has not made such a showing. Rather, we conclude that the BIA’s adverse 

credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
4 

2. The adverse credibility finding also undermines Wang’s claims for 

withholding of removal and CAT relief. Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 

(9th Cir. 2000) (“A failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to 

establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to 

demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation.”); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 

F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause we affirm the BIA’s determination 

that Farah and his witnesses were not credible, we must similarly affirm the 

rejection of Farah's claim under the Convention Against Torture.”). Here, the only 

evidence of past persecution is Wang’s testimony, which the BIA found to be 

unreliable.

The petition for review is DENIED.