Xiaoye Huang v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOYE HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70100
Agency No. A088-128-978
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 6, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, MURGUIA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Xiaoye Huang seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of
asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner also seeks review of the BIA’s
dismissal of her claim that the IJ violated her due process rights by exhibiting bias
* 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 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
against her attorney.
1. Petitioner argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and
reliance on Petitioner’s omissions in her asylum application in making that
determination constituted error. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s
determination that Petitioner is ineligible for asylum based on an adverse
credibility finding. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (“We
review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for
substantial evidence.”). The IJ made his credibility finding based on several factors
including specific instances of Petitioner’s demeanor, omissions in her asylum
application, and lack of corroborative evidence. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744
F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving deference to IJ’s demeanor assessment and
consideration of lack of corroborating evidence that provided the basis for IJ’s
adverse credibility determination). Here, while the omissions in Petitioner’s
asylum application cannot alone serve as the basis for an adverse credibility
determination, see Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 1996), the IJ
considered the totality of the circumstances in Petitioner’s application. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Under the substantial evidence standard, the evidence here
does not compel a result contrary to the IJ’s adverse credibility conclusion. See Lai
v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. The IJ and BIA also rejected Petitioner’s withholding of removal
claim based on the adverse credibility determination. Because the clear probability
standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the well-founded fear
standard for asylum, Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim also fails. See
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2014).
3. Petitioner’s argument that the IJ exhibited bias toward her attorney
and that the IJ’s bias violated her due process rights also fails. Petitioner cites to
comments by the IJ that constitute expressions of impatience or annoyance. Such
expressions do not establish bias or partiality. See Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994). The IJ’s comments do not show that the proceeding was
so fundamentally unfair that Petitioner was prevented from reasonably presenting
her case, and thus, the IJ did not violate her due process rights. See Ibarra-Flores v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620–21 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petition DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --