Xianning Dai v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIANNING DAI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72067
Agency No. A200-270-622
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2022**
San Jose, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Xianning Dai, a citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal
FILED
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the
petition because the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010).
Petitioner provided inconsistent reasons for leaving China, testifying that he
first decided to come to the United States after being arrested at a church gathering,
but then admitting he had earlier secured a passport and applied for admission to
college in the United States. He claims he was so severely beaten that his wrist
was fractured, and had healed. Yet when he was given the opportunity to
corroborate his testimony, he supplied a medical report that indicated there was no
evidence of a healed wrist fracture. He also testified inconsistently concerning
work registration requirements in China.
Petitioner was represented by counsel before the IJ and was given
opportunities to explain the inconsistencies, but did not do so. The IJ adequately
explained the reasons why the evidence Petitioner did provide was either not
credible or unpersuasive. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
determination that Petitioner failed to present sufficient corroborating evidence to
meet his burden of proof for asylum and withholding.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision on CAT relief. It
adopted the reasoning of the IJ that was premised on the adverse credibility
2

-- 2 of 3 --

finding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding
denial of asylum and CAT relief based on adverse credibility determination where
CAT claim depended upon same evidence presented in support of asylum).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --