Weike Luo v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIKE LUO, No. 20-72504
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-264-886
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Weike Luo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
*
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).
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both
decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).
We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Luo’s testimony, in which he stated that the
Chinese government forcibly induced his pregnant wife’s early labor, and his
asylum interview, in which he stated that the Chinese government forced his wife
to have a cesarean section. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“[E]ven minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may
constitute the basis for an adverse credibility determination.” (quoting Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011))). Luo’s explanations, which
themselves contained inconsistencies, do not “compel a contrary conclusion.” See
id. at 960–61. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
Luo’s corroborative evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for
relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Luo’s Convention
Against Torture claim because it is based on the same testimony the agency found
2
not credible, and Luo does not point to any other evidence in the record that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.
PETITION DENIED.
3