IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60048

FA WANG, 

 Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 834 841

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Fa Wang, a native and citizen of China, came to the United 

States in 2009. The Immigration Judge denied his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture after 

finding Wang was not a credible witness when he described religious 

persecution in China but failed to present corroborating evidence. The Board 

of Immigration Appeals affirmed. We DENY Wang’s petition for review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Fa Wang entered the United States on a student visa on November 11, 

2009. He has remained since that time, even after his visa lapsed when he 

discontinued his education. Wang had recently graduated from high school 

when he arrived in the United States; he is now 27 years old. Within two 

months of arriving in the United States, Wang submitted an application for 

asylum based on persecution in China for his Christian religion. 

Wang described his experiences as follows. In 2008, Wang was invited 

to attend a small underground Christian church in China that met in a 

member’s home. While visiting the house church, Wang met a man who 

identified another house church with younger members. Wang switched his 

attendance. There were 12 members in this house church, and Wang attended 

it every week until August 23, 2009. On August 23, four police officers broke 

into their gathering and arrested all of the members, confiscated their Bibles, 

and took them to the Huanghai Police Station. 

The police interrogated Wang for about an hour, questioning him about 

how he practiced his Christian religion. The police also slapped his face, broke 

his glasses, and shocked him with an electric baton five times. The police then 

detained Wang for eight days until his father paid 1,000 RMB1 on September 

1. Before releasing Wang, the police required him to sign a statement 

denouncing his Christian religion. As conditions of his release, Wang was also 

required to stop attending the house church, avoid contact with any of the 

house church members, and report to the police station every week. 

 

1 This is about $160 dollars. YAHOO! FINANCE, https://finance.yahoo.com/currencyconverter/ (last visited April 19, 2018). RMB, renminbi, is also abbreviated as CNY, Chinese 

yuan.

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

3

Shortly thereafter, with the help of his father who hired an agent, Wang 

obtained a student visa to come to the United States. This success was after 

two previous attempts to obtain a student visa had failed. After Wang left 

China, the police continued to look for him, including by questioning his 

parents. Wang does not report any harm to his parents.

Upon arriving in the United States in November 2009 on his student 

visa, Wang attended National University and started living in San Diego, 

California. His attendance at the university ended after one month. He 

explains that he discontinued his studies because he believed he would be 

required to return to China upon graduation, which he wanted to avoid. Wang 

alleges he claimed a desire to study in the United States because he thought 

he had to do so in order to leave China. In January 2010, two months after 

arriving in the United States, Wang filed his application for asylum, stating 

that he faced persecution for his Christian religion in China. When later asked 

why he did not seek asylum in November when he entered the United States, 

Wang testified that he “did not know anything here and [he] did not get used 

to the life here.” 

In December 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice 

to appear, charging Wang with removability because he did not attend school 

in compliance with the conditions of his status in the United States. Wang 

admitted the allegations in the notice to appear and conceded removability. 

On May 12, 2016, a final hearing was held on Wang’s application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Wang was represented by counsel. Wang was the only witness to 

testify. At the time, he had a limited ability to understand or communicate in 

English, and he testified through an interpreter. 

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

4

Wang testified about religious persecution in China and his three 

attempts to come to the United States. He also testified about his life in this 

country. Of concern to the Immigration Judge, Wang could not remember 

important details about his life, such as where he had lived or how many jobs 

he had worked since he arrived. He was uncertain about what states he had 

lived in although he did testify that he had lived in both Texas and California. 

Wang explained he had worked many jobs, exclusively at restaurants, and he 

often lived with his employer. Wang was uncertain in describing his parents’ 

occupations. In response to why he did not know certain facts, Wang testified 

he had “never been to any foreign country. I have no idea about United States.” 

As to his religious practices in the United States, he testified that he 

attended church twice a month. In Texas, he believed that the church he 

attended was Chinese Gospel Church, which was led by Pastor Liu. Wang 

testified he feared returning to China because he would be arrested or detained 

because he was a Christian. He also provided eight exhibits: a notarized 

certificate of his birth, a notarized certificate of his household register, his 

Chinese ID card, a police report of his arrest, police report notification, proof 

of fingerprint, proof of residency, and verification certification. These 

documents were translated from Mandarin into English, and the translator 

certified that the translation was correct. Wang did not provide any 

documents, such as letters, to corroborate his story of persecution in China.

The Immigration Judge denied Wang’s applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. He found that Wang was not 

credible, that his testimony was “hesitant, circular, non-responsive, [and] in 

some cases nonsensical,” and that Wang had no corroboration. The Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopted and affirmed the decision. Wang timely 

filed a petition for review. 

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

5

DISCUSSION

We review both the Immigration Judge’s and the BIA’s opinions because 

the BIA adopted the earlier decision. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 

(5th Cir. 2007). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal 

conclusions de novo. Id. at 594. In reviewing the facts for substantial evidence, 

we consider if the agency’s determination was based on a “full and fair 

consideration of all circumstances” with “meaningful consideration of the 

relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. 

INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Under this standard, 

we must affirm the agency’s determination unless the evidence compels a 

contrary conclusion. See id. “The applicant has the burden of showing that 

the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a 

contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).

An applicant’s testimony alone may be sufficient to obtain relief, but 

corroborating evidence should be provided if reasonably available. See Yang v. 

Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 2011). The applicant must persuade the 

factfinder that his “testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific 

facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The factfinder must make a determination on the 

credibility of the witness. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 905 (5th Cir. 2002).

In making adverse credibility determinations, immigration judges frequently 

rely on inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and falsehoods, even if inconsequential. 

See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009). Although we cannot 

substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder, we will not uphold an 

adverse credibility determination that is “based on pure speculation or 

conjecture” because “an adverse credibility determination still ‘must be 

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

6

supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record.’” Id. (quoting 

Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005)).

Wang seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. The 

Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158, et seq. 

To obtain asylum, an applicant must first qualify as a “refugee,” which is an 

alien that is unable or unwilling to return to his home country because he has 

been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of 

his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion.” Id. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An applicant has a well-founded fear 

if he has a subjective fear of persecution that is objectively reasonable. Zhao 

v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005). For withholding of removal, an

applicant must show a “clear probability” of persecution in his home country 

on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion. Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. Unlike asylum or 

withholding of removal, a CAT claimant must show that it is “more likely than 

not” that he will be tortured if forced to return to his home country. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 208.16(c)(2). The claim need not be based on race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Zhang, 432 F.3d 

at 344. 

Wang argues that there was substantial evidence supporting his claim 

that he was persecuted before leaving China and he has a well-founded fear of 

persecution if he returns. He further argues that the Immigration Judge

wrongfully speculated that his motivation for leaving China was to find 

economic opportunity rather than to avoid religious persecution. He clarifies 

that although he did want to leave China prior to being persecuted, the 

persecution “accelerated his plan to leave China,” which is not inconsistent 

with his prior desire to leave China. He further argues that no specific 

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

7

inconsistency was identified regarding his conversion to Christianity and 

persecution in China because of his religion. Wang contends that his exhibits 

supporting his claim of persecution in China were authenticated in court. He 

further explains that obtaining a corroborating letter from his father would 

have been difficult because his father is still in China. Finally, he provides 

reports showing that Christians are persecuted in China. 

The Government counters that there is no evidence in the record that 

compels reversal of the BIA. We often have upheld the BIA’s adverse 

credibility determinations because of factual inconsistencies and omissions in 

a petitioner’s testimony. For example, we agreed with the adverse credibility 

determination and denied relief where a petitioner disavowed membership in 

a political group and then stated that he had always been a member of the 

group. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 223, 226 (5th Cir. 2018). We also 

denied relief when a petitioner failed to provide corroborating evidence without 

any explanation for the lack of corroboration from family and friends. Diaz 

Flores v. Ashcroft, 104 F. App’x 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2004). Though the latter 

decision is not precedential, we agree with its conclusion that the absence of 

corroboration can be suspicious.

Although Wang’s testimony has been fairly consistent, it contains 

significant omissions. He was uncertain of where he has lived, worked, and 

attended church since arriving in the United States. The Immigration Judge 

made an adverse credibility determination in part because Wang “made 

several misstatements on his application and in his testimony, particularly 

concerning his place of residence, his places of employment, and his places of 

education.” In fact, Wang did not provide evidence of employment records or 

evidence supporting his statement that “he attended many Christian churches 

in the United States.” Most strikingly, the Immigration Judge found that 

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

8

Wang was “unable to give the name” of any church he attended in the United 

States. Also noted were inconsistencies in Wang’s testimony about his 

residency in the United States. In addition, the Government argues that 

corroborating evidence of various assertions was reasonably available yet not 

provided. Wang fails to explain why he did not obtain a letter from his parents 

or from someone at his church in the United States, which Wang implicitly 

admits he could have done when he wrote in his appellate brief that “perhaps 

he should have obtained a letter from his parents” and “evidence of his church 

attendance in the United States.” Even if some of his uncertainties could be 

explained by Wang’s difficulties with English, an adverse credibility 

determination was justified. 

There also were less defensible reasons for the credibility finding, 

reasons similar but distinguishable to those in another petition for review. See 

Ye v. Sessions, 695 F. App’x 785, 786 (5th Cir. 2017). Though that decision is 

not precedential, we see no error in it. There, we granted the relief after 

concluding the BIA’s decision did not reflect meaningful consideration of the 

evidence by the same Immigration Judge as heard Wang’s case. Id. at 790. In 

Ye, this Immigration Judge improperly speculated about the sincerity of Ye’s 

conversion to Christianity. Id. at 788–89. 

As to Wang, in addition to the credibility concerns that were reasonable, 

the Immigration Judge found the timing of Wang’s participation in the Chinese 

house church to be “highly suspicious” and “convenient.” Further speculation 

was that “[l]uckily for [Wang], he was arrested by the police right at the time 

he was trying to figure out a way to come to the United States.” Though 

improperly speculative, these findings do not dominate the credibility analysis 

as the panel in Ye concluded was the case there. Even when we doubt the 

propriety of some of the credibility findings, we agree it is proper to affirm if 

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-60048

9

other reasons are sound and “there is no realistic possibility that, absent the 

errors, the [Immigration Judge] or BIA would have reached a different 

conclusion.” See Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 272 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting 

Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 401 (2d Cir. 2005)). 

We sustain the credibility finding here. First, we distinguish Ye. Wang 

provided considerably less corroboration for his story than did Ye. Ye obtained 

letters from her house church in China that confirmed the police raid there;

she provided a letter from her pastor in the United States corroborating that 

she practiced her religion in this country; Ye also provided a witness at her 

hearing that corroborated her story. Ye, 695 F. App’x at 787. 

Equally important, there was substantial support for the Immigration 

Judge’s adverse credibility decision as to Wang that was independent of the 

improper speculation. Thus, we are convinced a remand would not alter the 

Immigration Judge’s or BIA’s findings on credibility, which are owed “great 

deference.” Efe, 293 F.3d at 903. 

We are to deny a petition for review unless “the evidence is so compelling 

that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen, 470 

F.3d at 1134. On this record, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Wang 

was not a credible witness and thus not entitled to asylum, withholding of 

removal, or CAT relief.

PETITION DENIED.

 Case: 17-60048 Document: 00514519335 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/19/2018