NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAOZHEN GONG; ZHENXIA WANG, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70367 

Agency Nos. A206-336-784 

A206-336-785 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. 

Baozhen Gong and Zhenxia Wang, natives and citizens of China, petition 

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for 

asylum, and Gong’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under 

* 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).

FILED

AUG 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70367 

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

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying 

the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID 

Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the 

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on inconsistencies within Gong’s testimony as to the severity of harm 

suffered, his compliance with police reporting requirements, family in the United 

States, his religious practice, and his demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility 

determination reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); see also

Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2021) (agency can 

afford substantial weight to inconsistencies that bear directly on petitioner’s claim 

of persecution); Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (agency’s 

demeanor finding supported where IJ provided “specific, first-hand observations”). 

Gong’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 

F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, 

petitioners’ asylum claim and Gong’s withholding of removal claim fail. See 

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining 

contentions regarding the merits of their asylum and withholding of removal 
3 16-70367 

claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and 

agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Gong’s CAT claim 

because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does not 

point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely 

than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the 

government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief 

that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-

64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.