Court Opinion

ID: 3065683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 22:37:08.481253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:21.967686
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 21 2013

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANLING WANG,                                    No. 11-71716

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A088-453-768

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted October 15, 2013**

Before:        FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Yanling Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding

of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on the difference between Wang’s statement and testimony regarding her

alleged past abortion, and the discrepancies in her testimony regarding her

employment at Quilin. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was

reasonable under “totality of the circumstances”). Wang’s explanations, including

memory problems, do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Wang’s asylum

and withholding of removal claims based on her alleged past abortion fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      We lack jurisdiction to consider any argument Wang now makes about a

future fear of sterilization because she did not raise this to the BIA. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                           2                                    11-71716