NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUOTAO XIN, No. 20-71974 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-546-825 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 10, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Guotao Xin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. Xin says that he is likely to face religious persecution and torture if he is removed to China, which he claims that he escaped while “under surveillance.” In support of his requests for relief, Xin testified that he attended two Christian home- church meetings in China, the second of which was broken up by police. Xin testified he was detained for four days during which time he was interrogated three times and beaten once. After Xin’s wife paid a fee to the police, Xin was released from detention but was required to report to the police on a weekly basis. The IJ found Xin not credible and denied all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. We review agency 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, looking to the “totality of the circumstances[ ] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(b)(iii)) (alteration in original). 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination under the totality of the circumstances. See id. Applying this standard, the IJ concluded that Xin was not credible “in light of a significant discrepancy in his accounts, unexplained by [Xin] after being afforded an opportunity to explain, 2 concerning the extent of his reporting requirement after his purported release from detention.” During his testimony, Xin indicated no less than three times that he reported to the police three to four times after he was released from detention. But Xin also testified, consistent with his declaration, that he remained in China for approximately twelve weeks after his release, and that once he was released, he was required to report to the police on a weekly basis. Xin should thus have been required to report to the police approximately twelve times. The first time he was asked to explain this inconsistency, Xin simply did not respond, prompting the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals