Case Name: Ruijun WANG; Wei Liu, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 204 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 05-75662
Parties: Ruijun WANG; Wei Liu, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
Ruijun WANG; Wei Liu, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75662.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006 .
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Ruijun Wang, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
Wei Liu, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Lead petitioner Ruijun Wang and Wei Liu, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's order denying Wang's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 743 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Wang not credible based on his submission of multiple documents allegedly establishing his marriage to Liu that were found to be fraudulent by a forensic examiner. Because the genuineness of these documents goes to the heart of his claim, substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination. See id. at 745. Accordingly, Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Wang does not challenge the agency's denial of relief under the CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.