Detao Xiong v. Merrick Garland

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 6 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DETAO XIONG, No. 16-72072
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-785-561
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 4, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, S.R. THOMAS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Detao Xiong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeal’s denial of his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Xiong sought protection based on his opposition to
*
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).
China’s one-child policy. He challenges the Board’s adverse credibility
determination.
We conclude that determination was supported by substantial evidence. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1093
(9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing an adverse credibility determination for substantial
evidence). There were numerous inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s testimony that
Xiong failed to explain. For example, Xiong maintained that his wife was forced
to have an abortion, but his own documents suggest that his wife gave birth. Xiong
also claimed that he was pressured at home by government officials but later stated
that he was pressured only at work by his employer’s family planning official.
Xiong provided implausible testimony when he failed to explain how the Chinese
government allegedly tried but failed for over a year to forcibly sterilize him even
though the government knew where he lived and worked.
Petitioner was given the opportunity to explain these discrepancies and to
provide corroboration, but he did not do so. He offers only the inadequate
explanation that the evidence might be subject to a different interpretation. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (stating that this Court may only overturn factual
determinations if the record “compelled” that result).
DENIED.
2