NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Zhixin Pang,

Petitioner,

v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-120

Agency No. A200-270-860

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 21, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,

*** District 

Judge.

Zhixin Pang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 

petitions for review of an amended final decision issued by the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order 

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

* 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). *** The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge 

for the Eastern District of Michigan, siting by designation.

FILED

APR 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we 

deny the petition for review.

1. “Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based 

decision for clear error and relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of 

reasons but did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,” we review “the 

reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning 

articulated in the IJ’s . . . decision in support of those reasons.” Lai v. Holder, 

773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). If the “totality of the circumstances” provides substantial evidence for 

an adverse credibility determination, we will uphold it. Alam v. Garland, 11 

F.4th 1133, 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. 

Pang alleges that he was terminated from a company in China and later arrested 

and beaten by police officers because he reported fraudulent conduct at the 

company. After expressing confusion and providing Pang with multiple 

opportunities to clarify the record, the agency found Pang’s testimony evasive 

and non-responsive. The agency also found Pang’s testimony that he left the 

letter at the company inconsistent with the fact that Pang attached the letter of 

termination to his asylum application. The agency identified other 

inconsistencies between the letter of termination and his testimony. The record 

supports the agency’s finding that Pang’s testimony was evasive, nonresponsive, and inconsistent with the documentary evidence. Even if Pang gave 
3

a plausible account for some of these discrepancies, the agency was not 

compelled to accept his explanations. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th 

Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 790–91 (9th Cir. 2014). 

2. The record supports the agency’s finding that the independent 

evidence failed to corroborate Pang’s testimony or establish Pang’s eligibility 

for asylum or withholding of removal. An affidavit from Pang’s brother did not 

impact the agency’s analysis because it was filed after the record closed, 

depriving the government of an opportunity to object or cross-examine Pang or 

Pang’s brother as to its contents. Cf. Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, 19 F.4th 

1224, 1231 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the admission of evidence at a 

removal proceeding must be fundamentally fair, which may include an

opportunity to cross-examine witness). And the letter of termination itself 

contained several internal inconsistencies. The agency was within its discretion 

to give limited weight to these documents. 

As the agency noted, “significant questions remain” about Pang’s past 

persecution, whether the persecution was on account of a protected ground, and 

whether Pang has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Pang does not 

explain how the rest of the independent evidence—an affidavit from Pang’s 

father, country conditions reports, and the household register—answers these 
4

questions.

1

3. The record supports the agency’s finding that Pang failed to 

establish eligibility for relief under CAT because there was insufficient

evidence demonstrating that Pang would experience mistreatment rising to the 

level of torture. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that an ongoing 

police search for Pang is likely to result in torture. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 

F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018). As for country conditions reports, the record 

supports the agency’s finding that these documents “indicate that there is 

mistreatment in Chinese prisons” generally but fail to show that Pang faces a 

particularized risk of torture in China. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32 

F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 

1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

The motion for a stay of removal, Docket Entry No. 3, is denied. The 

temporary stay of removal is lifted.

PETITION DENIED.

1 Pang’s argument that the IJ was required to provide Pang with notice of 

corroboration and an opportunity to produce evidence or explain why it was 

unavailable is unpersuasive because this requirement only applies to applicants 

deemed credible. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091 n.11, 1093 (9th Cir. 

2011); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).