NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PING WANG, No. 15-71744

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-552-253 v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Ping Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in the record regarding when Wang first attended a house church in China and his demeanor. Id. at 1044 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the circumstances); Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 2021) (an “IJ’s observations about demeanor” are entitled to “special deference”). Wang’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). Wang also failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence of his U.S. church attendance. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1047-48. 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).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Wang does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

2 15-71744 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 15-71744