Yue Wang v. Jefferson Sessions, 702 F. App'x 650

Petitioner Yue Ying Wang, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s dismissal of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The IJ denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA dismissed her appeal, and Wang petitioned this Court under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Key disputed factual matters included the number of police beatings she reported, whether police visited her in April 2008, and her religious attendance after an alleged police raid.
Wang raised additional theories (membership in a disfavored group, imputed political opinion, illegal departure, criminal status) that the court found unexhausted and therefore declined to consider.
The agency found Wang’s testimony and declaration inconsistent; the court reviewed those factual findings for substantial evidence under the REAL ID Act standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility regarding past persecution	Wang contended her testimony and declaration describe police beatings and harassment showing past persecution	Government argued inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and declaration justified adverse credibility finding	Court upheld adverse credibility finding as supported by substantial evidence
Well‑founded fear of future persecution (asylum)	Wang argued she would be persecuted if returned because of her Christianity and past police encounters	Government argued she failed to show a reasonable likelihood of future persecution given credibility issues and lack of corroboration	Court held Wang failed to establish a well‑founded fear; asylum denied
Withholding of removal	Wang sought withholding based on same facts as asylum	Government argued failure to meet higher ‘‘clear probability’’ standard and reliance on non‑credible testimony	Denied — because asylum not established, withholding likewise unavailable
Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief	Wang claimed risk of torture upon return based on alleged past harm and religious targeting	Government argued CAT claim rests on same discredited testimony and lacks evidence showing torture is more likely than not	Court denied CAT relief; substantial evidence supported denial

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act credibility standards and review)
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (administrative exhaustion requirement)
Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996) (judicial review limited to administrative record)
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (credibility explanations and adverse findings)
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006) (well‑founded fear of future persecution standard)
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (relationship between asylum and withholding eligibility)
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (CAT standard: more likely than not risk of torture)