NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XIAOXUE HUANG, No. 16-70040 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-192-229 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District Judge. Xiaoxue Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration * 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). *** The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. “When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. Reviewing the BIA’s adverse credibility determination for “substantial evidence,” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016), we deny the petition for review.1 Considering the “totality of the circumstances” and “all relevant factors,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Huang’s application was not credible. First, as the BIA correctly noted, there are inconsistencies between Huang’s testimony and supporting documents regarding whether and when he moved to a new address in China. His asylum application indicates that he lived at the same address between December 1967, when he was born, and November 2010, when he traveled to the United States. Yet, Huang admitted in his brief to the BIA that he changed address in June 2010. 1 Huang does not address the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Accordingly, only Huang’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal are at issue on appeal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that matters not specifically and distinctly argued in the opening brief are waived). 2 And both stories are inconsistent with his somewhat tentative statement at the merits hearing that he moved around 2008. Second, the BIA presented several valid reasons to question the reliability of Huang’s household registry and his Chinese National ID Card. The household registry was incomplete, because several lines, including Huang’s religious belief and his address, were not translated to English. The household registry also listed Huang’s ethnic group as “Han,” while the ID card listed his ethnic group as “Korean.” Huang makes …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals