NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONG YE-WAN, AKA Wandong Ye, No. 17-72855

Petitioner, Agency No. A087-455-726

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Dong Ye-Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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

* 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). (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual

findings for substantial evidence, 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies regarding whether Ye-Wan’s wife was sterilized, the

amount of the fines Ye-Wan paid, when he learned of his wife’s pregnancy, and

his wife’s location when family planning officials visited their home on December

6, 2008. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the

totality of circumstances”). Ye-Wan’s explanations do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the

absence of credible testimony in this case, Ye-Wan’s asylum and withholding of

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

We do not consider Ye-Wan’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of

his claims because the BIA did not decide them. See Santiago-Rodriguez v.

Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on

by the BIA).

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Ye-Wan’s CAT claim

because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Ye-Wan does

2 17-72855 not point to any other record evidence 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.

To the extent Ye-Wan contends that the IJ violated his right to due process,

we lack jurisdiction to consider it because he did not raise this claim before the

BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner

must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 17-72855