NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YA XIAO, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 71363 Agency No. A208

- 837

- 825

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2022 * * Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ARTERTON, ** * District Judge.
Petitioner Ya Xiao, a citizen of China, seeks review o f the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse

* 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 Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

credibility determination against her that resulted in the denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition. 1 The BIA repeatedly cited to the IJ’s decision and found no clear error in its reasoning on the relevant issues, so we review both decisions. See Garcia

- Martinez
v. Sessions , 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’ s reasoning, we review both decisions.” (citation omitted ) ); see also
Ornelas

- Chavez v. Gonzales , 458 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006); Medina

- Lara v. Holder , 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Thus, we refer to the Board and IJ collectively as ‘the agen cy.’”). We review the agency’s “ factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. ” Mukulumbutu v. Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Bassene v. Holder , 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013)). We uphold an adverse credibility determination unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Manes
v. Sessions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). “[T]here is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of the circumstances’ and ‘all

1 Because Petitioner did not raise any argument before the BIA or this court about the denial of her claim for Convention Against Tor ture relief , it is waived. Martinez

Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)

.3

relevant factors.’” Ling Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152

– 53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Accordingly, “only the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.”
Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jibr il v. Gonzales , 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)). Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on inconsisten cies in Xiao’s testimony and inconsistencies between her testimony and the documentary eviden ce
. Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1047

– 48 (upholding adverse credibility determination where the IJ “relied on factors explicitly permitted by the REAL ID Act including unresponsive and undetailed testimony, and inconsistent testimony for which there was no expla nation or corroboration”).
For example, Xiao testified that two police cars were present when she was
arrested , but later changed her story and stated only one car was present , before ultimately arguing under oath that she had never testified there were two police cars.
See Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 972

– 74 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the agency is not compelled to accept petitioner’s explanations for testimonial discrepancies)

. Xiao also testified tha t she applied for a student visa in order to come to a Christian country and avoid persecution , but had previously given a sworn

state ment to a C ustoms and Border Protection officer stating that she heard she could4

come to the United States to learn Englis h and stay for a long time, so she applied
for a student visa to do so

. When confronted with the inconsistency , she stated that
she came to the United States to avoid harassment but had already been planning to come to learn English

. See Cortez

- Pineda v. Holder , 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining “[t]he IJ did not have to accept [petitioner]’s unpersuasive explanations for the[] inconsistencies”)

. Similarly, Xiao testified that a male cousin in Ohio was her only relative in
th e United States , but in a prior sworn statement had stated that her only relative in the United States was a female cousin who was a green card holder. When confronted with the inconsistency , Xiao said “Um

. ” After being asked to explain,

s he then stated that her husband had a female cousin in New York who she had not
contacted. See Goel v. Gonzales , 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies between testimonial and documentary evidence will support an adverse credibility determinatio n).
Given the numerous inconsistencies in the record , t he agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Lalayan v. Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2021)

. PETITION DENIED

.