YANLING WANG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71716 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANLING WANG, No. 11-71716 Petitioner, Agency No.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

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.