Court Opinion

ID: 9389492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 18:01:51.994379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.050225
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          APR 25 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Zhixin Pang,                                     No. 22-120

               Petitioner,                       Agency No.     A200-270-860

  v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,

               Respondent.

                    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.
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, non-

responsive, and inconsistent with the documentary evidence. Even if Pang gave

                                          2
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

                                        3
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).

                                         4