Cheng Xu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 578 F. App'x 725 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHENG MEI XU; FANGQING WANG, No. 10-73238
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-471-796
A078-113-173
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Cheng Xu and Fangqing Wang, natives and citizens of China,
petition for review of the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are reviewed
for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
Under the substantial evidence standard, we must uphold the agency’s findings
unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332,
1336 (9th Cir. 2013).
The record does not compel the conclusion that Xu was a credible witness.
The IJ discussed the relevant factors of consistency, demeanor, plausibility, and
responsiveness, and gave reasons and examples to support each of the factors. For
example, although Xu testified that the abortion occurred on October 27, 1989, the
documentary evidence indicates that the abortion occurred on July 10, 1989.
Similarly, although Xu testified that she has been pregnant three times and has had
one abortion, the documentary evidence indicates that she has been pregnant four
times and has had two abortions. The IJ considered Xu’s explanations for these
inconsistencies, but he was not required to accept them. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We hold that the adverse credibility
determination and denial of asylum are supported by substantial evidence. Because
Xu did not satisfy the lower standard for proof of asylum, she necessarily did not
satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for withholding of removal. Id. at
2
1125. Finally, no other evidence compels the conclusion that Xu more likely than
not will be tortured if returned to China. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.
DENIED.
3