NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONGFANG WANG,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72237 Agency No. A099

- 896

- 713

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 11, 2020 * * Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, COOK, ** * and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Rongfang Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petition s for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for asylum ,

* 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 Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 24 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

withholding of removal , and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. We deny the petition.
1. S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. We uphold an adverse credibility determination so long as at least one ground is supported by substantial evidence. Rizk v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). The agency must “provide specific and cogent reasons in support of an adverse credibi lity determination” and must consider “the petitioner’s explanation” along with “other record evidence that sheds light on whether there is in fact an inconsistency at all.” Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malkandi v. Hold er , 576 F.3d 906, 917 (9th Cir. 2009)). Wang testified that she feared for her safety if she returned to China because
she had been targeted by the police for organizing protests against the government
after her home was demolished. But the BIA properly noted a meaningful inconsistency between Wang’s testimony and her supporting documentation : many of the documents she submitted, including her household registration and ID card,
identified her old home as her address even after the date she claims her home was
demolished

. This discrepancy is not trivial but instead goes to the heart of Wang’s asylum claim. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1046

– 47 (explaining that inconsistency at the heart of a claim carries great weight)

. Wang was give n an opportunity to3

explain this inconsistency, see Zhi v. Holder , 751 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2014),
and attempted to do so by testifying tha t the nature and costs of the household registration system prevented her address from being changed within the system
unless she took certain actions, such as purchasing property or paying to get the
address changed

. B ecause Wang’s explanation was unsupported by the record, the
IJ requested additional corroboratio n, such as background evidence or laws regarding th e registration system. See Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the IJ is not required to accept even “ plausible ” explanations unless the record compels otherwise). The evidence Wang provided to corroborate her story does not compel the conclusion that Wang’s testimony was credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Wang did not submit any expert testimony, regulations , or other authority to support her description of the registration system. Instead, she offered a lett er from
her husband, which simply repeated Wang’s story ; copies of National ID cards for
her husband and son that still listed the demolished address eight years later ; and photos depicting either other homes or a new building with a similar but distinct

a ddress on the street where Wang’s home once existed

. While some photos may depict a large building that encompasses Wang’s former address, no evidence in the record affirmatively corroborates that possibility

. The agency considered this evidence, see Shr estha , 590 F.3d at 1044, and properly concluded that it did not4

compel the conclusion that Wang ’s testimony was credible.
The BIA also properly relied on Wang’s omission from her asylum application of a serious injury she alleges was caused by persecution . Wang’s asylum application claims that she was kicked by police and fell to the ground , was
arrested and tortured in detention , and describes her injuries in some detail

. But at her asylum hearing, Wang testified to a serious injur y omitted f

rom her application : that when she was knocked to the ground by police, she lost her front teeth and bled profusely. When asked to explain her omission, Wang said only
that she had not been asked about that injury

. Injuries from persecution are not

mere details , and “[i]t was not unreasonable for the [agency] to be suspicious as to why” Wang only mentioned this injury for the first time at her hearing

. Zamanov , 649 F.3d at 974. Again, “the record does not compel the finding that the [agency’s] unwilling ness to believe this explanation, in light of the importance of
the omitted incident [] to [her] asylum claim, was erroneous.” Id. Because Wang was the only witness in support of her asylum and withholding claims, her claims depended on her credibility. B ecause we conclude

t hat the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, the BIA properly dismissed her claims for asylum and denial of withholding of
removal.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Wang’s CAT5

claim . Wang’s CAT claim was based on the same testimony that the agency properly found not credible, and no other evidence in the record compels the conclusion that it is more likely tha n not that Wang would be tortured if she were
removed to China. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048

– 49.
PETITION DENIED
.