NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XINGGUI CHEN,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73832 Agency No. A088

- 294

- 711

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2020 * * Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Xinggui Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that
denied his application for asylum , withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT)

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

* 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). 

# FILED

OCT 30 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

§ 1252. We deny the petition.
The BIA adopted the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision and added some of its own reasoning , so we review both decisions. Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We review constitutional challenges to immigration decisi ons de

novo. Cinapian v. Holder , 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence supports the determination that Chen was not credible. Chen has been through immigration hearings twice

— once in 20 10 , and again in
201 4 , after successfully petiti oning the BIA to reopen his case. Chen testified in his
2014 hearing that h e had a physical altercation with family planning officials after
his wife was forced to have an abortion. Yet he did not mention this incident in his
2010 hearing (or in his 2007 asylum application or 2008 asylum interview)

. Th is
omission is not a mere detail . Rather, the physical altercation supports Chen’s claim
of “other resistance” to China’s coercive population control policy

. See Nai Yuan
Jian v. Holder , 611 F.3d 1086 , 1094

– 95 (9th Cir. 2010). With the altercation , Chen’s
2014 testimony provides a “much different

— and more compelling

— story of persecution than the initial application

. ” Silva

- Pereira v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) ( quoting Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) ). Chen’s explanation is that his attorney at the time counseled him to omit the3

incident from his account. Even if such an explanation were plausible, t he record does not compel the conclusion that the IJ erred in refusing to believe Chen’s explanation , “in light of the importance of the omitted incident [] to his asylum
claim.” Zamanov , 649 F.3d at 974. Chen’s omission of the physical altercation
support s an adverse credibility finding

. Id.
Chen also submitted two letters from his wife that involved further omissions
and inconsistencies

. The first letter was dated 2009 and was submitted in support of
Chen’s first hearing; the second letter was date d 201 3 and was submitted in support
of Chen’s motion to reopen his case

. In b oth letters , Chen’s wife fail ed to mention
the physical altercation , or that Chen’s attorney directed her to omit the altercation. In addition, t he IJ identified some inconsisten c y in Chen’s testimony about whether
his wife wrote the first letter, given that her second letter (which was transcribed)
concedes that she cannot write well. Accordingly, we are not compelled to conclude
that the IJ erred in finding Chen not credible und er the totality of the circumstances.
See Manes v. Sessions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017). Without credible testimony, Chen’s asylum claim fails

. Chen’s application for withholding of removal also fails because his eligibility for withholding of removal relies on his asylum claim

. Chen has not specifically discussed his CAT
claim in his brief

, and , thus , waives his appeal of that claim. See Castro

- Perez v. Gonzales , 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005).4

Finally, we reject Chen’s Due Process argument because he has failed to show how his hearing was not full and fair or how he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf. The petition for review is DENIED

.