Zhixin Pang v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Zhixin Pang,
Petitioner,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-120
Agency No. A200-270-860
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 21, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,*** District
Judge.
Zhixin Pang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
petitions for review of an amended final decision issued by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order
denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
* 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 Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Michigan, siting by designation.
FILED
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition for review.
1. “Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based
decision for clear error and relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of
reasons but did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,” we review “the
reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning
articulated in the IJ’s . . . decision in support of those reasons.” Lai v. Holder,
773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). If the “totality of the circumstances” provides substantial evidence for
an adverse credibility determination, we will uphold it. Alam v. Garland, 11
F.4th 1133, 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding.
Pang alleges that he was terminated from a company in China and later arrested
and beaten by police officers because he reported fraudulent conduct at the
company. After expressing confusion and providing Pang with multiple
opportunities to clarify the record, the agency found Pang’s testimony evasive
and non-responsive. The agency also found Pang’s testimony that he left the
letter at the company inconsistent with the fact that Pang attached the letter of
termination to his asylum application. The agency identified other
inconsistencies between the letter of termination and his testimony. The record
supports the agency’s finding that Pang’s testimony was evasive, non-
responsive, and inconsistent with the documentary evidence. Even if Pang gave

-- 2 of 4 --

3
a plausible account for some of these discrepancies, the agency was not
compelled to accept his explanations. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th
Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 790–91 (9th Cir. 2014).
2. The record supports the agency’s finding that the independent
evidence failed to corroborate Pang’s testimony or establish Pang’s eligibility
for asylum or withholding of removal. An affidavit from Pang’s brother did not
impact the agency’s analysis because it was filed after the record closed,
depriving the government of an opportunity to object or cross-examine Pang or
Pang’s brother as to its contents. Cf. Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland, 19 F.4th
1224, 1231 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the admission of evidence at a
removal proceeding must be fundamentally fair, which may include an
opportunity to cross-examine witness). And the letter of termination itself
contained several internal inconsistencies. The agency was within its discretion
to give limited weight to these documents.
As the agency noted, “significant questions remain” about Pang’s past
persecution, whether the persecution was on account of a protected ground, and
whether Pang has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Pang does not
explain how the rest of the independent evidence—an affidavit from Pang’s
father, country conditions reports, and the household register—answers these

-- 3 of 4 --

4
questions.1
3. The record supports the agency’s finding that Pang failed to
establish eligibility for relief under CAT because there was insufficient
evidence demonstrating that Pang would experience mistreatment rising to the
level of torture. The evidence does not compel the conclusion that an ongoing
police search for Pang is likely to result in torture. See Guo v. Sessions, 897
F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018). As for country conditions reports, the record
supports the agency’s finding that these documents “indicate that there is
mistreatment in Chinese prisons” generally but fail to show that Pang faces a
particularized risk of torture in China. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland, 32
F.4th 696, 706–07 (9th Cir. 2022); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
The motion for a stay of removal, Docket Entry No. 3, is denied. The
temporary stay of removal is lifted.
PETITION DENIED.
1 Pang’s argument that the IJ was required to provide Pang with notice of
corroboration and an opportunity to produce evidence or explain why it was
unavailable is unpersuasive because this requirement only applies to applicants
deemed credible. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091 n.11, 1093 (9th Cir.
2011); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).

-- 4 of 4 --