N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YANM ING XIONG, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73898 Age n c y No. A099-369-838
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 Fe brua

ry 11, 2016 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, C LIFTON, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Yanm ing Xiong pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ dism issa l of his a

ppe a l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 

# F IL ED F EB 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Xiong a rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d in finding tha t he wa s not pe rse c ute d in C hina on a c c o unt of his viola

tion of thefam ily

pla nning la ws. Xiong te stifie d tha

t his wife wa s forc e d

to ha ve an a bortion whe n she be c am e pre gna

nt with the ir se c ond c hild. Howe ve r, the spouse of som e one who is forc e d to ha

ve an a bortion is not ne c e ssa

rily e ntitle d to a s y lum
. J

iang v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th C ir. 2010). In a ddition to the a bortion, thespouse m

ust show tha t he e nga ge d in “ othe r re sista nc e ” to his c ountry ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion
c ontrol la ws. Id. The spouse m

ust a lso show tha

t he suffe re d som e pe rse c ution be y ond the a

bortion itse l f. Id. W e re vie w a s a

m atte r of la

w whe the r Xiong’ s a c t ions c onstitute “ othe r re sista nc e .” Se e id. at 1093–94. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Xiong did not suffe

r pa st pe rse c ution, a

n d doe s not ha

ve a we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e id. at 1093, 1095–97. He re , Xiong did not show tha t he e nga g e d in “ o the r re sista nc e .” Xiong
a dm itte d tha t the pre g na

n c y wa s not inte ntiona l. W

hile Xiong te stifie d tha

t he pla nne d to hidethe pre gna

nc y from the gove rnm e nt a

nd ke e p the c h ild, he did not te stify to a ny a c ts of re sista

nc e tha t he unde rtook. Xiong a lso fa ile d

to show pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his wife ’ s pre g na nc y . His hospita

liz ation for high blood pre ssure is not suffic ie nt. The

2gove rnm e nt did not inte ntiona lly inflic t this high blood pre ssure on Xiong. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the finding tha t Xiong’ s high blood pre ssure did not rise to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supporte d the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t Xiong fa ile d to show a

n inde pe nde nt we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(2). The gove rnm e n t took no inte

ntiona l a c tions a ga i nst Xiong
a fte r the forc e d a

bortion. Xiong’ s wife , who wa s the one a c t ua lly forc e d to ha

ve the a bortion, c urre ntly

live s in C hina

without problem . Nothing in the re c ord sugge s ts tha

t Xiong would now be

pe rse c ute d

for this pre gna

nc y if he re turne d to C hina
. Xiong a lso a

rgue s tha t the B IA e rre d in a ffirm ing the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation with re ga

rd to his forc e d re l oc ation c la i m . W e re vie wa d ve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ions for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Lai v . Holde r , 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th C i r. 2014). W e will only re ve rse if the re c ord c om pe l s the c onc lusion tha

t the a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination wa s inc orre c t . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); Te k lev . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C i r. 2008). Whe n re vie wing a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inat ions, we look first to the
re a s ons give n by

the B IA. Lai , 773 F.3d a t 970. W e the n look to the IJ’ s ora l de c ision for a

n e xpla nation of those re a sons. Id.

3The B IA gave two re a sons for a ffirm ing the a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation: 1) Xiong te stifie d inc onsiste ntly a bout whe the r he wa s be ate n during both his inte

rrogations, or only

during these c ond inte rrogation; a nd 2) Xiong’ s writte n a

pplic ation sta

te d tha t he wa s offe re d 6,000 R

M B pe r squa

re m e t e r for his a pa rtm e nt whe n he wa s forc e d to re l oc ate , but a t the he aring Xiong te stifie d that he wa s offe re d 2,600 R

M B pe r squa

re m e te r. B oth re a sons we re supporte d by substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Whe the r Xiong wa s be ate n onc e or twic e is not a “ trivia l” inc onsiste nc y . Se e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1043–44 (9th C i r. 2010) (holding tha t a n IJ m ay ba se an a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion on a

“ m inor” inc onsiste n c y , but not a “ trivia l” one ). The
num be r of be atings is highly

re le va nt to whe the r Xiong’ s m istre atm e nt rose to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Xiong’ s e xpla nation for this inc onsiste nc y wa s tha t he wa s une duc ate d. Se e id. at 1044 (holding tha t a n IJ m ust c onside r a

n a pplic a n t’ s e xpla nation for a

ny inc onsiste n c ie s). Eve n

an une duc ate d pe rson would like ly
re m e m be r how m a

ny tim e s he wa s be ate n . The IJ a nd B IA did not e rr in finding this e xpla nation unc onvinc ing. The se c ond inc onsiste nc y wa s a lso not “t

rivia l.” Xiong c la im e d tha t he wa s be ate n a fte r prote s ting theina de quate c om pe nsation he wa s offe re d for his
a pa rtm e nt. It wa s the re fore ve ry re le va nt how m uc h c o m pe nsation Xiong wa s 4offe re d. Xiong’ s e xpla nation for this inc onsiste nc y wa s tha t he wa s initia l ly offe re d 6,000 R

M B pe r squa

re m e te r, if he m ove d out by a c e rta in da

te . Whe n he sta y e d pa st tha

t da te , the c om

p e nsation offe re d we nt down. Howe ve r, Xiong wa s spe c ific a lly

a ske d on c ross-e xam ination whe the r he wa s e ve r offe re d a diffe re nt
am ount tha

n 2,600 R M B pe r squa

re m e te r, and he sa id no. TheIJ a nd B IA did not
e rr in finding this expla

nat ion unpe rsua sive
. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t the a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation wa s inc orre c t. The B IA did not e rr in de ny ing Xiong’ s a pplic ations for a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l ba se d on his forc e d re loc ation. DE NIE D
.

5