United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM **

Baiyin Wang ("Wang"), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the IJ's and BIA's adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009), we deny in part and dismiss in part Wang's petition for review.

The adverse credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence. The IJ concluded that Wang lacked credibility because, inter alia, Wang claimed that she sold her soda factory in China because the police were harassing her for practicing Zhong Gong, while Wang's sister testified that Wang sold the factory because of her poor health. Wang was unable satisfactorily to explain this contradiction, asserting simply that her sister was wrong. The inconsistency goes to the heart of Wang's claim of past persecution. The IJ provided a specific, cogent reason for the adverse credibility finding. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 737, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (upholding an adverse credibility finding where the petitioner's testimony concerning the severity of the persecution was contradicted by documentary evidence and the petitioner's only explanation for the inconsistency was that the documentary evidence "was wrong"). In light of the IJ's supportable adverse credibility finding, the evidence does not compel us to reach a result contrary to that of the IJ on the issues of asylum and withholding of removal. Nor does the entire record compel us to order relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that defeat of asylum claim on credibility grounds does not necessarily preclude relief under CAT). The petition for review accordingly is denied with regard to these claims. 1 See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Wang's claim that she was denied due process in her hearing due to an incompetent translator, because Wang failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Huang v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Thus, the petition for review is dismissed with regard to this claim.