NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SIYANG XIANG, No. 19-71847 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-841-215 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 5, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: SILER,** HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Siyang Xiang petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial by the immigration judge (“IJ”) of his application for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review factual findings, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 1 As the BIA noted, Xiang withdrew his applications for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture. including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition. 1. In upholding the IJ’s finding that Xiang was not credible, the BIA cited three of the IJ’s reasons, and each of them is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). First, the IJ concluded that Xiang’s testimony that he had stayed with his parents in the “far south of China” from the time of his alleged release from detention until his departure to the United States was contradicted by email communications showing that he had traveled to the northeast of China during that period. When confronted with the discrepancy, Xiang claimed that he had simply forgotten about this trip, which he said was to visit his grandparents. The IJ considered this explanation but did not accept it, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Because credibility determinations are findings of fact by the IJ, they are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Second, the IJ noted that Xiang’s light-hearted state of mind as reflected in his contemporaneous email communications with his then-fiancée was inconsistent with his claim that, during that timeframe, he was “desperate” and “devastated,” 2 “living in fear” of Chinese authorities, and “scared every single day.” When questioned, Xiang claimed that he had lied to his fiancée so as not to scare her. The IJ found this explanation to be unpersuasive, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Manes, 875 F.3d at 1263. Third, the IJ noted that, when confronted with the discrepancy about being in the northeast of China at the same time he was supposedly living …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals