Xu Yao v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XU YAO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73943
Agency No. A088-196-799
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submission Deferred December 9, 2014
Submitted June 1, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Xu Yao (Yao) challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’
affirmance of the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture.
FILED
AUG 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination:
Yao’s conclusory and speculative statements concerning his knowledge of alleged
theft and embezzlement by the factory’s management; Yao’s inadequate
explanation regarding his representation of workers at a factory that he had not
been associated with for several years; Yao’s inconsistent testimony that
governmental investigations had “no outcomes” while acknowledging that some of
the factory’s directors and managers confessed to theft and embezzlement; and
Yao’s testimony that he remained in the United States because of its quality of life,
although asserting in his asylum application that he did not return to China due to
his fear of being arrested. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)
(articulating that, under the REAL ID Act, the IJ may premise an adverse
credibility determination on “any inaccuracies or falsehoods . . . or any other
relevant factor”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on its
adverse credibility determination, the IJ properly denied Yao’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims. See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir.
2014).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of Yao’s claim under the
Convention Against Torture, because Yao failed to present any evidence beyond
his discredited testimony to establish that it was “more likely than not that he . . .
2

-- 2 of 3 --

would be tortured if removed.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir.
2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --