Xiaoyuan Ma, etc. v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior District Judge for the United
States District Court for Southern California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOYUAN MA, etc.
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70354
Agency No. A044-414-695
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 18, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior
District Judge.**
Petitioner Xiaoyuan Ma, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s final order
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
FILED
DEC 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the parties are familiar with the
factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to
resolve the issues raised on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny Ma’s petition for review.
Even if we assume, without deciding, that Ma’s petition for asylum was
timely, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s (IJ)
adverse credibility finding. The IJ concluded that Ma was not credible based on
her testimony at the hearing that her second marriage was a bona fide marriage
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including a signed statement from
her former second husband stating that he never lived with her and that the
marriage was arranged by a third party in order for Ma to gain immigration
benefits. Moreover, Ma gave inconsistent and changing testimony regarding the
circumstances of her relationship with her current third husband and about when
she knew her conditional lawful permanent resident status ended. Thus,
considering the totality of the circumstances, the IJ properly based its adverse
credibility finding on these inconsistencies, which bear on Ma’s veracity. See Ren
v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011).
Outside of her testimony, Ma did not present the IJ with any specific
objective evidence to demonstrate that she had a well-founded fear of persecution.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Ma did not present corroborating evidence and because of the adverse credibility
finding, the IJ was not required to give her notice that corroborating evidence was
required and afford her an opportunity to present such evidence. See id. at 1091 &
n.11. Furthermore, the 2005 China country report contained evidence that
returnees to China with United States citizen children may be forgiven and not
forced to undergo any procedures. AR at 151, 261. Thus, in the absence of
credible testimony and additional objective evidence, Ma’s asylum claim fails. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Ma’s
withholding of removal and CAT claims are based on the same testimony found to
be not credible, those claims also fail. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --