Shou Xie v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
OCT 18 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHOU QIANG XIE, No. 20-72402
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-456-551
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.
Shou Qiang Xie petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his
application for asylum and withholding of removal. (Xie also sought relief under
the Convention Against Torture, but the Board found that he did “not meaningfully
*
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
challenge” the immigration judge’s denial of such relief, and he does not seek
review of that determination here.) We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). First, the agency
reasonably concluded that Xie’s voluntary return to China in 2015 following his
vacation to South Korea diminished the credibility of his fear of persecution. See
Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018–19 (9th Cir. 2008). Second, the agency
made the “reasonable assumption based in common sense” that it was implausible
that Xie’s wife became pregnant in 2018 despite having an intrauterine device. See
Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 834–35 (9th Cir. 2021). Xie had relied on his
wife’s 2018 pregnancy as a basis for his continuing fear of persecution. Third,
Xie’s testimony that he and his wife were in hiding at his mother-in-law’s house
until the birth of his second child was inconsistent with his testimony that his wife
visited public hospitals during that time for tests and examinations, which the
agency found “undermined not only [Xie’s] overall credibility, but also his claim
that local officials strictly enforced violations of [population-control] policies.”
Because the adverse credibility finding is supported by the record, we are not
compelled to accept Xie’s testimony as true. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332,
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
1338 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Xie did
not independently establish his claims through corroborating evidence. See Yali
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017); Ling Huang v. Holder, 744
F.3d 1149, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2014).
The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 1) is denied as moot.
PETITION DENIED.
3