Case Name: SHAOPING WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-09
Citations: 540 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 09-72452
Parties: SHAOPING WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
SHAOPING WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72452.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 30, 2013.
Filed Sept. 9, 2013.
Daniel Patrick Hanlon, Hanlon Law Group, a Professional Law Corporation, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Shaoping Wang, a native and citizen of China, applied for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that his participation in an underground Christian church caused Chinese authorities to seek his arrest. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Wang's application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Wang asks that we grant his petition for review.
We review credibility findings for substantial evidence. An adverse credibility determination is "conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2011).
In this case, the IJ based his determination on inconsistencies in Wang's testimony regarding: (1) a written notification allegedly given to Wang's wife by the Chinese police, and (2) the date the Chinese police last visited Wang's house. He also relied on the demeanor and responsiveness of Wang's testimony. These were appropriate considerations for a credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(iii).
Because the record supports the finding of inconsistent and evasive testimony, we cannot disturb the adverse credibility finding. Without credible testimony, Wang failed to meet his burdens of proof.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.