N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SUOHUA GONG, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-70820 Age n c y No. A099-717-272 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Suohua Gong, a nat ive and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions pro se for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED OCT 3 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a p ply ing thesta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations c re ate d by the RE AL ID Ac t. Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dism iss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Gong doe s not m ake any

argum e nts re g arding his fa m i ly pla nning c la im . Se e M artine z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not spe c ific a lly

ra ise d a nd a rgue d in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f are wa ive d). W ith re spe c t to Gong’ s c orruption c la im , substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination ba se d on theinc onsiste nc ie s in Gong’ s te stim ony re ga rding whe n he de c ide d to orga niz e the prote s t, whe n it took plac e , and whe n he c a lle d his c o -worke rs, a nd ba se d on a

n inc onsiste nc y

be twe e n Gong’ s te stim ony and doc um e nt ary

e vide nc e re g arding theam ount he wa s fine d. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048 (a dve rse c re dibility finding re a sona

ble unde r tota lity

of c irc um s ta nc e s ); D on v . Gonzale

s , 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th C ir. 2007) (inc onsiste nc y

in “ c ruc ia l da

te ” supporte d a d

ve rse c re dibility

finding). Gong’ s e xpla nations do not c om

p e l a c ontra ry c onc lusion. Se e Lata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th C ir. 2000). W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w Gong’ s c onte ntions re ga rding his house hold re giste r, la c k of opportunity

to e xpla in or providefurthe r proof, a nd
1 3 - 7 0 8 2 0 2possible inte rpre tation or ty pogra phic a l e rrors be c a

use he fa ile d to ra ise the m to the B IA. Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re je c t Gong’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a ge nc y ’ s a

na ly sis wa s ina de quate . In the a bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , Gong’ s a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v
. Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). In a ddition, Gong’ s C AT c la im fa ils be c a

use it is ba se d

on the sa m e sta te m e nts thea ge nc y

found not c re dible , a

nd the re c ord doe s not othe rwise c om pe l the finding tha

t it is more like l y

tha n not hewould betorture d by or with the a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to C hina . Se e id. at 1156-57. Fina lly , we la c k

jurisdic tion to re vie w Gong’ s c onte ntions tha t the IJ wa s not ne utra l or m i ssta

te d fa c ts. Se e Barron , 358 F.3d a t 678. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 7 0 8 2 0 3