Xueli Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUELI CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1284
Agency No.
A200-248-904
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2024**
Honolulu, Hawai’i
Before: PAEZ, M. SMITH, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Xueli Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Chen alleges that he
* 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 15 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2 22-1284
suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution in
China on account of his Christian religion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Chen argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial
evidence. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). Under this
deferential standard, factual findings, including credibility determinations, are
“conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
The IJ found that Chen was not credible due to inconsistencies in the record
regarding the reissuance of his passport, the timing of his conversion to
Christianity, his visa applications, and his employment history, among other
matters. The BIA adopted the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, finding that
there was no clear error in the IJ’s conclusion that Chen was not credible. To the
extent the BIA reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its
own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s. Parada v.
Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018).
In assessing an adverse credibility finding, we look to the “totality of the
circumstances[] and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137

-- 2 of 5 --

3 22-1284
(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
The BIA relied on discrepancies in Chen’s testimony regarding the timing
and circumstances of the reissuance of his passport. Chen testified that he was
arrested on April 29, 2011 and detained for five days because of his attendance at
Christian meetings. As a condition of his release, Chen was required to report
weekly to the local police and was not permitted to leave the area.
Chen’s passport was reissued on April 21, 2011, eight days prior to his arrest
and detention. Chen testified that he obtained a passport because he wanted to
leave China and come to the United States. Chen stated that he had difficulty
obtaining a passport because “at that time, I had to report to the local police station
every Monday.” Yet Chen’s passport was reissued days before he was arrested and
subsequently required to report weekly to the police. When the IJ confronted him
with the discrepancy, Chen paused and was unable to provide an explanation. The
BIA adopted the IJ’s finding that this inconsistency called into question the
trustworthiness of Chen’s entire asylum application.
Chen’s inconsistent testimony about the timing and circumstances of events
that led to his claim of persecution is a sufficient ground to support an adverse
credibility determination. See, e.g., Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th
Cir. 2010) (The petitioner’s “inability to consistently describe the underlying

-- 3 of 5 --

4 22-1284
events that gave rise to his fear was an important factor that could be relied upon
by the IJ in making an adverse credibility determination.”). Further, Chen’s
inconsistent testimony regarding this issue and his failure to provide an explanation
when confronted with the inconsistency is a sufficiently “specific instance[] in the
record” supporting the adverse credibility determination. Id. at 1044.
The BIA also relied on discrepancies in the timing of Chen’s conversion to
Christianity in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. It noted that in Chen’s
wife’s I-589 application statement, she stated that she was forced to endure an
abortion in 2006 and that Chen comforted her by saying that “only God was[]
omnipotent” and “God would not abandon us. Due to the fact that my husband was
a Christian, he was arrested and persecuted . . . .” Yet Chen’s wife testified that
prior to 2010, Chen had not yet converted to Christianity and was not religious.
When confronted with this discrepancy, Chen’s wife stated that he had actually
made this statement in 2011, not 2006. When asked to explain why she would
write in her statement that Chen comforted her after an abortion if that incident
occurred five years after the abortion, she fell silent and was unable to answer.
The BIA adopted the IJ’s finding that inconsistent record evidence and
testimony regarding Chen’s conversion to Christianity undermined the veracity of
his claims. These discrepancies are sufficiently specific and cogent reasons that
support the adverse credibility determination. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d

-- 4 of 5 --

5 22-1284
1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016).
Under the REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005), if an IJ
does not find the petitioner’s testimony to be sufficient alone, “the IJ may require
corroborative evidence.” Yali Wang, 861 F.3d at 1009 (citing Ren v. Holder, 648
F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011)). The BIA found that Chen’s corroborating
evidence was insufficient to redeem the inconsistencies in his testimony. In the
absence of credible testimony, the corroborating evidence provided by Chen does
not compel a different conclusion. See id. The agency’s adverse credibility
determination is thus supported by substantial evidence. In the absence of credible
testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to meet Chen’s
burden to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Because the adverse credibility determination and lack of corroboration
findings are supported by substantial evidence, the agency properly denied Chen’s
application for asylum and withholding of removal.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --