N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HUANHUI XING,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71199 Age n c y No. A088-574-959
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 23, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B YB EE, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r C hua

nhui Xing is a

native and c itiz e n of the Pe ople ’ s R e public of C hina . He pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ s (B IA) de c ision (1) a ffirm ing theim m igration judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd C onve ntion Against Torture (C AT) prote c tion a nd (2) re j e c ting 

# FIL ED OCT 31 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Xing’ s c l a im tha t a n ina b ility to unde rsta

nd his interpre te r de nie d him due proc e ss be fore the im

m igration c ourt. W e de ny the pe tition. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. “ W e re vie w de nia ls of
a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d C AT re l ie f for substa

ntia l e vide nc e and will uphold a de nia l supporte d by

re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive e v ide nc e on the
re c o rd c onside re d a s a

whole .” Huang v
. Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd c ita tions omitte d). W e will uphold the B IA’ s fa c t ua l findings unle ss “ the e vide nc e not only supports [a c ontra ry ] c onc lusion, but
c ompe ls it.” Id . (a lte ration in origina l). W e re v ie w due proc e ss c l a im s de novo. C olme nar v . IN

S , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C i r. 2000). 1. The B IA did not e rr in a ffirm ing theIJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. An
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion is “ c onc lusive unle ss a ny re a sona ble a djudic ator would be c om

pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry . ” Mane

s v . Se ssions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th C ir. 2017) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tions omitte d ). He re , the e vide n c e doe s not c om pe l a finding tha

t Xing wa s c re dible . On se ve ra l issue s, som e of whic h re a c he d the founda tion of his c la im , Xing’ s te stim ony wa s e i the r inte rna lly inc onsiste nt or inc onsiste nt with his prior sta te m e nts or othe r doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e . S

e e Shre stha v
. Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1046–47 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [W ] he n a

n inc onsiste nc y

is a t the he art of the c la im

it doubtle ss is of gre at
2we ight.” ). Xing’ s m issta te m e nts c onc e rne d im

porta nt fa c ts suc h a s the y e ar the
a lle ge d e v e nts oc c urre d, the le n gth of tim e he re m a i ne d in hiding, a

nd the e xiste nc e of doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e . Thus, thea dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination wa s supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd the re c ord doe s not c o m pe l a c ontra ry re sult. 2. Xing wa s not de n i e d due proc e ss. “ The Fifth Am e ndm e nt gua ra nte e s due proc e s s in [re m ova l] proc e e dings,” inc luding theright “ to a full a nd fa ir he aring”
and “ a re a sona

ble opportunity

to pre se nt e vide nc e .” C olme nar , 210 F.3d a

t 971. To e sta blish a viola tion of this right, a

n a lie n fa c i ng re m ova l m

ust show two things: first, tha

t the proc e e dings we re “ so funda m e nta lly unfa ir tha

t the a l ie n wa s pre v e nte d from

re a sona bly pre se nting his c a se ,” and se c o nd, tha t the a lie n suffe re d

“ pre judic e , whic h m e a

ns tha t the outc om e of the proc e e ding m ay have be e n a ffe c te d by

the a lle ge d

viola tion.” Id . (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

n d c ita tions
om i tte d). Xing fa ils to sa t isfy e ithe r re quire m e nt. The re c ord doe s not re fle c t tha t Xing ha d diffic ulty

unde rsta nding his inte

rpre te r in im

m igration c ourt. To the
c ontra ry , the re c ord shows tha

t in m u ltipleinsta

nc e s, both Xing a

nd his a ttorne y c onve y e d to theIJ tha

t the y we re satisfie d with theinte rpre te r’ s pe rform anc e . Furthe r, Xing ha s not ide ntifie d a ny m ate ria l e vide nc e that he wa s una ble to pre s e nt due to inte rpre te r e rror, nor ha s he shown how the outc om e would ha

ve 3diffe re d with a diffe re nt inte rpre te r. Thus, Xing ha s not shown he wa s de nie d due proc e s s by

an ina bility to c om m unic ate with his inte

rpre te r, if suc h ina

bility e xiste d
at a ll. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4