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

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-73351 Age n c y No. A205-752-951
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2019 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C LIFTON, IKUTA, a nd B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s . Yang Xia ng a ppe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B IA) orde r
a ffirm ing theim

m igration judge ’ s de nia l of e l igibility for a sy lum

and withholding of re m ova l, a

nd de nia l of prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(1). 

# F IL ED NOV 26 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Any

e rror by the B IA in m isc onstruing our prior rem and orde r a s c ove ring only Xia n g’ s C AT c la im

wa s ha rm le ss, be c a

use the IJ re c onside re d a ll of Xia ng’ s
c la im s a nd de nie d the m . The B IA e xpre ssly or im plic itly a ffirm e d the IJ’ s rulings on C A T, a sy lum , a

nd withholding of re

m ova l. Thus, a

n othe r re m and would be futile
. Se e

, e .g. , Te je da-Mata v . IN

S , 626 F.2d 721, 726–27 (9th C ir. 1980). The B IA did not e rr by a ffirm ing theIJ’ s de nia l of a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l. The IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t Xia ng wa s not c re dible wa s supporte d by
m ultipleim pla usibilitie s a

nd inte rna l inc onsiste nc ie s in Xia ng’ s te stim o ny
re ga rding thele ga lity

of his busine ss. Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii), 1252(b)(4)(B ); Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C i r. 2011). For insta nc e , Xia ng’ s c la im

tha t his busine ss wa s le ga l wa s inc onsiste nt with his own te stim ony that he c ontinue d ope rating his busine ss for se ve ra l m onths a fte r the C h ine se gove rnm e nt ha d

m a de it ille ga l. His c la im wa s a lso inc onsiste nt with e v ide nc e in the re c ord indic ating tha

t his busine ss m ode l wa s substa ntia lly the sa m e a s the fundra ising a

rrange m e nt s tha

t C hina ha d outla we d for se ve ra l y e ars. B e c a use e ve n
one m ate ria l inc onsiste nc y is e nough to support a

n a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation, the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding wa s supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Se e Rizk

, 629 F.3d a

t 1088.

2The IJ did not err in giving little we ight to Xia

ng’ s c orroborating e vide nc e be c a use Xia ng’ s te stim ony

and initial submissions were not “ othe rwise c re dible .” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(ii); se e Yali W ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017). M ore ove r, the IJ wa s e ntitle d to givelittle we i ght to Yua n Yua n’ s le tte rs both be c a

use the y we re he arsay , se eGu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th C ir. 2006), a

n d be c a use of the m ate ria l om issions in Yua n Yua n’ s first le tte r, whe re she ne gle c te d to m e ntion tha t she ha d be e n a

rre ste d, de ta ine d

and torture d,
a s sta te d in he r se c ond le tte r. Se eZamanov v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th C ir. 2011).W ithout Xia

ng’ s c re dible te stim ony , the re c o rd did not e sta blish tha t he wa s ha rm e d on a c c ount of his re ligion. Thus, the B IA did not e rr in de ny i ng his a sy lum
and withholding of re

m o va l c la im s. 1 The B IA did not e rr by a ffirm ing theIJ’ s de nia l of prote c tion unde r C AT. Xia ng ha d the burde n of e sta b lishing tha

t he would “ m ore like ly

tha n not” be torture d if re m ove d to C hina . 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2). The IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding, discusse d a

bove , a lso a

pplie d to Xia

ng’ s te stim ony

with re s pe c t to his

1 The B IA did not a ddre ss que stions re g arding whe t he r Xia ng’ s a pplic ation wa s tim e l y or whe the r the se rious non-politic a l c rim e ba r unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1231(b)(3)(B )(iii) is a

pplic a ble , a nd so we do not re a c h

the se issue s. Gonzale

s v . Thomas , 547 U.S. 183, 186 (2006); IN S v . Orlando Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002). 3C AT c la i m . S e e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1048–49 (9th C ir. 2010). The IJ wa s e ntitle d to a c c o rd little we ight to the

le tte rs subm itte d by

Xia ng be c a use the i r a uthors we re not a

va ila ble for c ross-e x am ination. Gu , 454 F.3d a t 1021. M ore o ve r, the IJ found inc onsiste nc ie s in thetwo le tte rs from Yua n Yua n a nd be twe e n the le tte r from

Xia n g’ s e x-wife and Xia

ng’ s own te stim ony re ga

rding his form e r c l a ssm ate . Fina lly , the IJ c ould c onc lude tha t the le tte r from

Xia ng’ s
m othe r, if c re dite d, e sta

blishe d only

tha t the polic e we re looking for Xia n g, not tha

t Xia ng ha d a he ighte ne d risk of torture
. The re c ord did not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Xia ng fa c e s a n inc re a s e d thre at of torture a s a

n ove rse a s fugitivea c c use d of fina nc ia l c rim e s. The c ountry re port did not e sta

blish tha t Xia ng is within a

c at e gory at he ighte ne d risk of torture , be c a use Xia ng is not a

politic a l or re ligious disside nt, a la w y e r, or a ta rge te d e thnic or spiritua l m inority . Nor is Xia ng wa nte d for a c rim e ide ntifie d in the 2014 Hum an R ights W atc h re port, whic h sta t e d tha t “ torture is pa

rtic ula rly c om m on a nd
se ve re in m

urde r c a s e s, tria d-re late d c rim e s, a nd c o rruption c a se s.” Although a
ne ws re port in the re c ord sta t e d tha t C hina is pursuing fugitive s wa

nte d for

“ e c onom ic c o rruption,” t

he re port did not indic ate tha t suc h c rim ina l s a

re at a he ighte ne d risk of torture , e v e n a ssum ing tha t C hine se offic ia ls would c onside r Xia ng’ s a lle ge d offe nse to c onstitute e c onom ic c o rruption.
4In sum , a l though ba c kground e vide nc e in the re c o rd showe d tha t torture is
c om m on in C hine se prisons, this did not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Xia ng in pa rtic u la r would m ore like ly

tha n not betorture d if he wa s re m o ve d to C h ina and
arre ste d. Se e Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051–52 (9th C i r. 2008); Almaghzar v . Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th C i r. 2006). AFFIRM E D.

5