Lixiang Jin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIXIANG JIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72884
Agency No. A205-184-887
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Lixiang Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Jin’s testimony and statements at her asylum
interview, implausible and uncorroborated accounting of events, and
misrepresentations in her visa application. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility
finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Li v. Garland,
13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa application supported
adverse credibility determination); Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926-27
(9th Cir. 2020) (inconsistent and implausible testimony supported adverse
credibility determination where petitioner failed to provide sufficient corroborating
evidence). Jin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Jin’s
documentary evidence did not independently establish eligibility for relief. See
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (absent
credible testimony, petitioner failed to establish eligibility for relief). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Jin’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding
standard).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate
issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --