NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DI DI XIE, No. 20-70234 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-154-567 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 13, 2021** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: O’SCANNLAIN, MILLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Di Di Xie, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT for substantial evidence. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We also review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, considering the totality of the circumstances. Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1136– 37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Under this standard, we must uphold the agency’s determination unless any reasonable trier of fact “would be compelled” to conclude to the contrary based on the record. Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 664 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. First, Xie “purposefully omitted his military service from his asylum application.” He also failed to disclose his military service in his written asylum application. When asked why he did not disclose his military service, Xie twice stated that he was afraid that if he revealed it, he would be returned to China. The BIA concluded that given Xie’s “lack of candor on this topic, his testimony does not provide us with any adequate assurance that his military service resulted in no disqualifying conduct.” We agree. This is not a “careless error about peripheral details.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). That conscious 2 decision to lie distinguishes Xie’s case from those where an applicant omitted a collateral or minor detail from his asylum application. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2020). And this court has repeatedly held that an applicant’s admission of past dishonesty—especially dishonesty while under oath—supports an adverse credibility determination. See, e.g., Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007)). Second, Xie could not provide reasonable detail about his employment history in his asylum application and at his hearing testimony. See Iman, 972 F.3d at 1065 (“The lack of detail in an applicant’s testimony can be a relevant factor for assessing credibility.”). He stated that he did “odd jobs,” served …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals