XZAN-HANG CAO, AKA Xian-Hang Cao v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XZAN-HANG CAO, AKA Xian-Hang Cao,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72192
Agency No. A208-190-474
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Xzan-Hang Cao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
* 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 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Xzan-Hang Cao not credible, and the BIA
concluded that the IJ’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies in Xzan-
Hang Cao’s testimony, credible fear interview, and asylum application concerning
(i) how many times he was beaten by the police, (ii) whether he received medical
attention after being beaten, (iii) whether he heard from the police after being
released, and (iv) why his friend did not provide a supporting letter. See Lizhi Qiu
v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019). The record supports the cited
inconsistencies. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Xzan-
Hang Cao was given an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies but failed to
adequately do so. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore,
without credible testimony, the BIA properly denied Xzan-Hang Cao’s claims for
asylum. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --