Court Opinion

ID: 9371680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 18:00:29.434217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:29.507482
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 16 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEIKE LUO,                                      No.    20-72504

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-264-886

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Weike Luo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

      *
             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).
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both

decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, 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 have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Luo’s testimony, in which he stated that the

Chinese government forcibly induced his pregnant wife’s early labor, and his

asylum interview, in which he stated that the Chinese government forced his wife

to have a cesarean section. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021)

(“[E]ven minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may

constitute the basis for an adverse credibility determination.” (quoting Ren v.

Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011))). Luo’s explanations, which

themselves contained inconsistencies, do not “compel a contrary conclusion.” See

id. at 960–61. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that

Luo’s corroborative evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for

relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Luo’s Convention

Against Torture claim because it is based on the same testimony the agency found

                                          2
not credible, and Luo does not point to any other evidence in the record that

compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if

returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                         3