NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHENGYONG WENG, No. 17-70324

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-183-796

v.

MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Chengyong Weng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* 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). 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,

1039-40 (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 inconsistencies between Weng’s testimony and documentary evidence as

to when he began planning to travel to the United States. See id. at 1048 (adverse

credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Weng’s

explanation does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,

Weng’s asylum claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.

2003).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Weng’s contentions as to withholding of

removal and CAT relief because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review

claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 17-70324