E ri c H . H o l d er Jr. i s sub st i tu t edfo r h i s p red ecesso r, A l b ert o R . G o n zal es, * a s A tto rn e yG e n e r a l o f

th e U n ite dS ta te s , p u r s u a n t to F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P roce du re 43 (c )( 2). T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt ** e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT B AI YIN WAN G, P et i t i on er , v. ER I C H. HO LDERJ R. , ATTORNEY * G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 71372 A ge nc yN o. A 77- 997- 921

ME MOR AN DU M **

O n P et i t i on for R evi ew of an O rder o f th e B o a r do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry14, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B E F O R E : S C H R O E D E R , C A N B Y , and M cK E O W N , C i rc ui tJudg es B a i y i n W a ng ( “ W a ng” ) , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of a n or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) di s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f r om a n i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h e rap p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, 

# FI LED JU N 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l, an dr e lie f

u n d e rth e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . W e h av e ju risd icti o n p u rs u an t t o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . R ev iew in g th e I J’s a n dB IA ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf

in d in g s f o rs u b s tan tia l e v id e n c e , So to-O larte v . H older , 555 F .3 d1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 1 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ), w e d en y in p ar t an dd ism iss in p ar t W an g ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ngs a r e s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . T he I Jc o n c lu d e dth a t W a n g la c k e dc r e d ib ilityb e c au s e , in te ra lia , W ang cl ai m ed that s he s ol d he rs odaf

a c t oryi n C hi nabe c aus e the pol i c e w e r e ha r a s s i ng he rf or prac t i ci ng Z ho ng G on g, w hi l e W ang’ s s i st ert es t i fi ed thatW ang sol d the fa ct ory b e c au s e o f

h e rp o o rh e a lth . W a n g w a s u n ab le s a tis f a c to r ilyto e x p la in th is contra di ct i on , as se rt i ng si m pl y thather s i st erw as w rong . T he i ncon si st encygo es t o the heartof W ang’ s c l ai m of pastpers ec ut i on . T he IJprov i ded a speci fi c, c o g e n t r e a s o n f

o rth e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g . See G oel

v. G on zales , 490 F . 3d 7 3 5 , 7 3 7 , 7 3 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( up h o ld in g a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng w he r e the pe t i t i one r ’ s t e s t i m onyc onc e rni ng the s e ve r i tyof the pe r s e c ut i on w a s c ontr a di c t e d bydoc um e nt a rye vi de nc e a nd the pe t i t i one r ’ s onl ye xpl a na t i on f orthe i nc ons i s t e nc yw a s tha tthe doc um e nt a rye vi de nc e “ w a s w r ong” ) . I n l i ghtof th e I J ’s s up p o rtab le a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g , th e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t c o m p e l u s to r e a c h ar e s ul tc ontr a ryt o tha tof the I Jon the i s s ue s of

a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng ofF orus t o uphol d the a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyf i ndi ng, onl yone of

the r e a s ons 1 c i t e d bythe I Jne e d be s upport e d bys ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a nd go t o the he a rtof W a n g ’s c la im . Se e W

a n gv . I NS , 3 5 2 F . 3 d1 2 5 0 , 1 2 5 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . T h u s , we e xpr e s s no vi e w on the a ddi t i ona l i nc ons i s t e nc i e s a nd i m pl aus i bi l i t i e s i de nt i f i e d by th e I Ja s u n d e r ly in g th e a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g . 3 r e m ova l . N ordoe s the e nt i r e r e c or d c om pe l us t o or de rr e l i e f unde rthe C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e . Se e Ka m a l th a s v . I NS , 25 1 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 80 (9th C i r. 2001) ( hol di ng tha tde f

e a tof a s y l um c l a i m on c r e di bi l i tygr ounds doe s not n e c e s s a r ilyp r e c lu d e r e lie f u n d e rC A T ) . T h e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w a c c o r d in g lyis d en i edw i th reg ardt o th ese cl ai m s. See D on v. G on zales , 4 7 6 F .3 d7 3 8 , 7 4 1 ( 9 th 1 C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rW a ng’ s c l a i m tha ts he w a s de ni e d due p r o c e s s in h e rh e a r in g du e to a n in c o m p e te n t tr a n s la to r , b e c au s e W a n g f a ile dto e x h au s t th is c o n te n tio n b e f o r e th e B I A . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; H ua ngv. Mukasey , 520 F . 3d 1006, 1008 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . T hus , the pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w is d is m is s e dw ith r e g a r dto th is c la im . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED I N PA R T; D I SM I SSED I N PA R T.