Li Lin Xue v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LI LIN XUE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73149
Agency No. A209-420-047
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2022**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: HAWKINS, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Li Lin Xue, a citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) order upholding the denial of his claims for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
* 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
FEB 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
2017), and deny the petition.
When the BIA partially adopts the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
and contributes its own reasoning, we review both the BIA decision and the IJ
decision, to the extent the BIA adopted it. Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190,
1194 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s denial based on
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. “We review factual findings, including
adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Wang, 861 F.3d at
1007 (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). When
reviewing an adverse credibility determination, we consider the totality of the
circumstances and all relevant factors, see Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137
(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), and may reverse only if the record compels a contrary
conclusion, see Wang, 861 F.3d at 1007.
Xue’s testimony was marked by inconsistencies, implausibilities, and
contradictions with the record. For example, Xue testified that he first learned about
Christianity from a friend in 2016. But his baptismal certificate notes “childhood”
as the time of his belief in God. The IJ was unpersuaded by Xue’s explanation that
his mother was also a Christian (an allegation absent from Xue’s testimony on direct
examination or the letter submitted by Xue’s father). While it is possible that Xue’s
mother was a Christian, Xue’s explanation about his baptismal certificate is
inconsistent with his assertion that he learned of Christianity from a friend in 2016.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
See Wang, 861 F.3d at 1007 (holding that credibility determinations “may be made
‘without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the
heart of the applicant’s claim’” (internal citation omitted)). Next, although Xue
testified that he was detained in a police station in Fuqing City for fifteen days, Xue
was unable to describe even the approximate part of town in which he was detained
and his father’s letter makes no mention of accepting Xue upon his release or posting
Xue’s bail. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ may
base a credibility determination on the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s
account). Taken together, these inconsistencies—among others—and the IJ’s
implausibility findings provide substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (adverse credibility
determination is based on “the totality of the circumstances”). And without credible
testimony, Xue fails to establish his eligibility for asylum and withholding of
removal.
Xue also argues the BIA erred by failing to apply the notice and explanation
requirements of Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090–93 (9th Cir. 2011). But because
the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence
and did not depend on Xue’s lack of corroboration, Ren’s notice and explanation
requirements do not apply. See id. at 1089. The agency merely noted that Xue did
not provide corroborative evidence to rescue his discredited testimony or

-- 3 of 4 --

4
independently satisfy his burden of proof.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --