NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 p rotection 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 APPEALS2 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

Ac t. 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 W ang 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 applica nt’s testimony
can be a relevant factor for assessing credibility.”). Petitioners’ explanations do3 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, p etitione rs’ 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.