XIQIN WANG V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-72459 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 24 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XIQIN WANG, No. 08-72459 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-055-381 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Xiqin Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The IJ found Wang not credible for a number of reasons, including the implausibility that she would administer medicine she knew to be unqualified to her son, the inconsistency between her asylum application and her testimony regarding whether she was convicted for anti-government activity and disturbing the social order, and her failure to produce reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act s totality of the circumstances ). In the absence of credible testimony, Wang s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Wang does not challenge the IJ s denial of CAT relief. See MartinezSerrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-72459

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.