FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 26 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANG XIANG, No. 17-73351 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-752-951 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 25, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON, IKUTA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Yang Xiang appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, and denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Any error by the BIA in misconstruing our prior remand order as covering only Xiang’s CAT claim was harmless, because the IJ reconsidered all of Xiang’s claims and denied them. The BIA expressly or implicitly affirmed the IJ’s rulings on CAT, asylum, and withholding of removal. Thus, another remand would be futile. See, e.g., Tejeda-Mata v. INS, 626 F.2d 721, 726–27 (9th Cir. 1980). The BIA did not err by affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ’s determination that Xiang was not credible was supported by multiple implausibilities and internal inconsistencies in Xiang’s testimony regarding the legality of his business. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B); Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). For instance, Xiang’s claim that his business was legal was inconsistent with his own testimony that he continued operating his business for several months after the Chinese government had made it illegal. His claim was also inconsistent with evidence in the record indicating that his business model was substantially the same as the fundraising arrangements that China had outlawed for several years. Because even one material inconsistency is enough to support an adverse credibility determination, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088. 2 The IJ did not err in giving little weight to Xiang’s corroborating evidence because Xiang’s testimony and initial submissions were not “otherwise credible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, the IJ was entitled to give little weight to Yuan Yuan’s letters both because they were hearsay, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006), and because of the material omissions in Yuan Yuan’s first letter, where she neglected to mention that she had been arrested, detained and tortured, as stated in her second letter. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Without Xiang’s credible testimony, the record did not establish that he was harmed on account of his religion. Thus, the BIA did not err in denying his asylum and withholding of removal claims.1 The BIA did not err by affirming the IJ’s denial of protection under CAT. Xiang had ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals