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

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72217 Age n c y No. A200-159-530
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 13, 2019 * * Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : TALLM AN, B YB E E, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Xia o Ping W

u pe titions for re vie w of the de nia l of his a pplic ation for a sy l um and withholding of re

m o va l by the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a l s (B IA). W e de ny the p e tition for re v i e w. 

# FIL ED FEB 15 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The B IA re v ie w e d the im m igration judge ’ s (IJ) a dve rse c re d ibility finding for c l e ar e rror. It ide ntifie d four spe c ific re a s ons for a ffirm ing theIJ’ s c re d ibility finding. W e re vie w only

the re a sons e xplic i tly

ide ntifie d by

the B IA, a s we ll a s the
re a s oning a

rtic ulate d in the IJ’ s de c ision in support of those sta t e d re a sons. Te k

le
v . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports two of thefour re a sons c ite d by the B IA. 1 1. Wu provide d inc onsiste nt sta te m e nts with re ga

rd to whe the r he re turne d to his hom e a fte r the inc ide nt with the de puty dire c tor. W

u wa s c onfronte d with the pe rc e ive d inc onsiste n c y

and fa i le d to providea

re a sone d e xpla

nation. W

u a sse rts that a re a sona ble fa c t-finde r c ould not c onc lude tha t his wife ’ s sta

te m e nt im plie d that she ne ve r sa

w W u a ga in. W e disa gre e . Although the re c o rd c ould ha

ve supporte d a

diffe re nt c onc lusion tha

n the one the B IA re a c he d , a pply ing theprope r

“ he a lthy m e a sure of de fe re nc e ” to the B IA, a diffe re nt c onc lusion is not c o m pe lle d. Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2010). 2. In the ir writte n sta

te m e nts, W

u a nd his wife fa ile d to m e ntion tha t W u would be subje c t to ste riliz at ion if he re turne d to C hina . Ge ne ra lly , “ om issions a re le ss

1 The B IA a lso ide ntifie d

othe r inc onsiste n c i e s a

nd om issions. W

u wa s not c onfronte d on the se issue s. The re fore , substa ntia l e vide n c e doe s not support the se findings. Zi Lin C

he n v . Ashc roft , 362 F.3d 611, 618 (9th C ir. 2004). Howe ve r, the t wo re m a i ning inc onsiste n c ie s a re suffic ie nt to support the a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se eLianhua J

iang v . Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 738-39 (9th C ir. 2014).

2probat ive of c re dibility tha n inc onsiste nc ie s c re ate d by dire c t c ontra d ic tions in
e vide nc e an d te stim ony .” Lai v . Holde r , 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th C ir. 2014). Howe ve r, om issions tha

t te l l a “ m uc h diffe re nt— and m ore c om pe lling— story

of pe rse c ution tha

n [the ] initia l a

pplic ation” c a

n support a

n a dve rse c re d i bility finding. Silv a-Pe r e ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th C ir. 2016) (a lte ration in origina l) (c ita

tion omitte d). He re , the thre at of ste riliz ation for re ve nge pre se nts
a m uc h m ore c om

pe lling fe a

r of future pe rse c ution. W u provide d e xpla

nations for the o m issions; howeve r, the B IA re je c te d the m

be c a use the y we re not “ re a sona

ble
and pla usible .” S

e eRizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C ir. 2011). W u argue s tha

t the B IA wa s re quire d to e xpla in why his e xpla nation wa s not pla

usible
. Although a

n e xpla nat ion m ay

have be e n

he lpful, we hav e he ld in sim i la r c irc um s ta nc e s tha t “ [n] o e xpre ss, point-by -point re je c tion of [the ] e xpla

nations [is]
ne c e ssa ry .” Id. The re fore , we c annot sa y tha t the re c o rd c o m

pe ls the c onc l usion that W u wa s c re dible
. Id. at 1087. The B IA’ s a dve rse c re d i bility de te rm inat ion ba

rring W u’ s a sy lum

c la im a lso ba rs his withholding of re

m ova l c la im
. Yali W

ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3