Court Opinion

ID: 6500465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-15 20:00:39.162851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.908751
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 15 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIN XU,                                         No.    15-72066

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-784-529

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Min Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

      *
             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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies in Xu’s testimony and documentary evidence regarding

whether Chinese authorities confronted her about her second pregnancy and forced

abortion prior to the day of the procedure, and inconsistencies between Xu’s

United States and Canadian asylum applications. See id. at 1048 (adverse

credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Xu’s

explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Xu’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Xu’s

remaining contentions regarding corroboration or the merits of her claims. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are

not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Xu’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and

Xu does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion

                                          2                                     15-72066
that it is more likely than not she would be tortured in China. See Farah, 348 F.3d

at 1157.

      We do not consider the materials Xu references in her opening brief that are

not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   15-72066