Xiaolei Zhao v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOLEI ZHAO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72822
Agency No. A200-259-327
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: OWENS and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,*** District
Judge.
Xiaolei Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the
* 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 Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 17 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. “We review factual findings, including adverse
credibility determinations, for substantial evidence,” which we uphold “unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Bhattarai
v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). As the parties are
familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for
review.
Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Zhao was not credible. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d
1058, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2020). In particular, Zhao conceded that he made a
number of false statements on his first visa application, such as regarding his
marital status and employment. Because Zhao lied on his first visa application
before the alleged incident with Chinese police due to his Christian religion, “the
deception here was completely unrelated to escaping immediate danger.” Singh v.
Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that lying to immigration
authorities “counts as substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility
finding, unless the lie falls within the narrow” exception for lying to flee a place of
persecution or secure entry into the United States). Indeed, when asked about the
false statements, Zhao testified that he went along with the lies on his first visa
application, which was prepared by a broker company, because he wanted to come

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to the United States for tourism, and he did not mention that he did so to escape
persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Zhao’s
documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate his credibility or
independently support his claims. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927
(9th Cir. 2020). The agency noted that the purported bail receipt does not contain
Zhao’s name. And while the detention notice contains Zhao’s name, it does not
provide sufficient information to independently establish his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --