NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIANSHAN WANG; JIANG LI, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73397 

Agency Nos. A099-418-154 

A099-418-155 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jianshan Wang and Jiang Li, 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 decision denying their application for asylum and 

denying Wang’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the 

* 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

JAN 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73397 

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 

for Wang based on her submission of counterfeit documents, inconsistencies in her

testimony regarding the date of her arrest, the number of times she reported to the 

police, and who mailed her the notarized marriage certificate, as well as 

inconsistencies in her testimony and lack of candor regarding her residences in the 

United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the 

totality of the circumstances); see also Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964-65 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (fraudulent document properly considered and adverse credibility 

determination supported under the totality of the circumstances). Substantial 

evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination for Li based on 

an inconsistency regarding whether Li accompanied Wang to speak to the head of 

the factory, and lack of detail and evasive testimony regarding his wedding day 

and visa application. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048; see also Iman v. Barr, 972 

F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The lack of detail in an applicant’s testimony 

can be a relevant factor for assessing credibility.”). Petitioners’ explanations do 
3 16-73397 

not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 

2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony in this case, petitioners’ asylum 

claim and Wang’s withholding of removal claim fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 

F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Wang’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not 

credible, and Wang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels 

the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured in China. See

id. at 1157.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.