NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED NOV 2 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XIN XING; YI ZHENG, No. 19-71988 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A200-269-119 A200-269-120 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 22, 2020 Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge BENNETT Petitioners Xin Xing and Yi Zheng seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their asylum applications on adverse credibility grounds. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal. We review for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. substantial evidence “denials of asylum [and] withholding of removal.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, will be upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). We deny the petition. “[A]n adverse credibility determination must be made after considering ‘the totality of circumstances, and all relevant factors,’” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010), including, but not limited to, “the consistency between . . . written and oral statements . . . the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements,” regardless whether they “go[] to the heart of the applicant’s claim,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and provided its own analysis, the Court reviews both decisions. Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the IJ identified, and the BIA relied on, multiple inconsistencies and omissions between Petitioners’ testimony, prior statements, and documentary evidence. For example, the BIA and IJ highlighted the inconsistency between the Chinese and English versions of Xing’s bail receipt, versions proffered by 2 Petitioners. The English version lists the charge as “illegal family gathering,” but the Chinese version cited anti-government Christian activities. The BIA and IJ emphasized that Xing had more than five years to correct any errors in her documents, is a college-educated woman, and had been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. They also cited the following omissions from prior statements that were not disclosed until the IJ hearing: Xing’s father’s bribe of Chinese authorities, Chinese authorities’ December 2017 visit to her parents, her husband’s presence with her in the United States since March 2011, and Petitioners’ registration of their marriage in China the same month as Xing’s arrest. The BIA and IJ also cited the inconsistency in the amount of religious materials Xing was carrying at the time of her arrest. When Xing told an asylum officer in 2012 that she was arrested with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals