N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ENQIN XUE, AKA W e n Qin Xue , Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-73910 Age n c y No. A098-445-354
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 August 13, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . W e nqin Xue (“ Xue ” ), a

native and c itiz e n of the Pe ople ’ s R e public of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision by the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” )
a ffirm ing the Im

m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture . W e have jurisdic tion 

# FIL ED AUG 29 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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).pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny in pa rt, gra nt in pa rt, a n d re m a n d the pe tition. Xue sta te s tha t she wa s the vic tim

of forc e d ste riliz a tion in 1993 a t the ha nds of C hine se fam ily

pla nning offic ia l s a

nd tha t she wa s a

rre s te d a nd be a te n in 2004 be c a use of he r a tte nda

nc e at a loc a l C hristia

n m e e ting. Although the

B IA re vie we d the IJ’ s de c ision for c le ar e rror, it did not ad opt the IJ’ s de c ision a s its own. Inste a d, the B IA ide ntifie d se ve ra l spe c ific grounds on whic h it a ffirm e d the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion a s to e a c h

of Xue ’ s two c la im s. W e re v ie wthe
re a s ons e xplic itly

ide ntifie d by

the B IA, a s we ll a s the re a soning a rtic ulate d in the IJ’ s de c ision in support of those sta te d re a sons; we do not, howe ve r, “ re vie w those pa rts of the IJ’ s a dve rse c re d i bility finding tha

t the B IA did not iden tify a s ‘ m ost signific ant’ and did not othe rwise m e ntion.” Te k

lev . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008). B e c a use c re dibility

de te rm inations a

re findings of fa c t , the y

“ are c onc lusive unle ss a ny re a sona

ble a djudic a tor would be c om pe lle d to c onc lude to the
c ontra ry .” 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(b)(4)(B ) (2000). Xue file d he r pe tition be fore the
e ffe c tive date of the R e a l ID Ac t of 2005, so a t le a st one of the ide ntifie d grounds unde rly ing the ne g a tive c re dibility finding m

ust be supporte d

by substa ntia l
e vide nc e an d go to thehe art of Xue ’ s c la im s of pe rse c ution in order to a ffirm a 2ne gative c re dibility finding. Li v . Ashc r oft , 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2004).

M inor inc onsiste nc ie s re ga rding non-m a te ria l and trivia l de ta ils c annot form the
e xc lusive ba sis for a

n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. S

e e K aur v . Gonzale

s , 418 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th C ir. 2005). Inste a d, the B IA m ust a rtic ulate a le g itim a te ba sis to que stion thea

pplic a nt’ s c re dibility and offe r spe c i fic and c oge nt re a sons for any sta te d disbe lie f. Gui v . IN

S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th C ir. 2002). W ith re ga rd to Xue ’ s re ligious perse c ution c la i m , the B IA ide ntifie d se ve ra l inc o nsiste nc i e s note d by

the IJ tha t go to thehe art of tha

t c l a im , inc luding
c ontra dic tory

sta te m e nts by

Xue a bout thenum

be r of tim e s she wa s inte rrogate d
and be a te n while de ta ine d a n d whe the r she wa s inte rrogate d a nd be a t e n a fte r be i ng re le a se d . Xue ha d opportunitie s to e xpla in the se inc onsiste n c ie s , but theIJ a nd the B IA re a sona

bly found the e xpla

nations insuffic ie nt a

nd unc onvinc ing. Se e C ampos-Sanc he

z v . IN S , 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th C ir. 1999). W ith re ga rd to Xue ’ s forc e d ste riliz a tion c la im , the B IA ide ntifie d only one inc o nsiste nc y : the date on Xue ’ s m arria ge c e rtific a te diffe rs from the m arria ge date writte n on the Fuqing C i ty

Fam ily Pla nning Offic e form doc um e nting he r tuba l liga tion c onduc te d a s a

re sult of viola

tions of fa

m i ly pla nning polic y . It is undispute d tha

t Xue ha s two c hildre n, in viola tion of C hina ’ s fam ily

pla nning polic ie s. Xue a lso introduc e d c orroborating e vide n c e in the form of a doc tor’ s 3e xam ination in the Unite d State s c onfirm ing tha t she ha d unde rgone a tuba l liga tion. Theinc o nsiste nc y

in the m arria ge dat e s doe s not go to the he art of Xue ’ s forc e d ste riliz a t ion c la im , a nd the B IA’ s re l ia

nc e on it is there fore insuffic ie nt to support its adve rse c re dibility finding. Bandari v . IN

S , 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha

t “ a lle g e d inc onsiste nc ie s in da te s tha t re ve a l nothing a

bout
a pe t itione r’ s c re dibility c a nnot form the ba sis of a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding” ). Xue ’ s pe tition is the

re fore de nie d a s to he r re l igious pe rse c ution c la i m and gran te d a s to he r forc e d ste riliz a tion c la i m . B e c a use the B IA a ffirm e d ba se d on the
a dve rse c re dibility

grounds without othe

rwise c onside ring Xue ’ s e ligibility for
a sy lum , we re m and to the a g e nc y for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste n t with this disposition. Se e Te k

le , 533 F.3d a

t 1056. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; and RE M A NDE D. Ea c h pa

rty sha ll pa y its own c osts on a

ppe a l.

4