NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUEXIAO CHEN, No. 12-70330
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-599-991
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 11, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SILER,** and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Xuexiao Chen, a Chinese citizen, petitions for review of the BIA’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252, and we deny his petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Lai v.
Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). “[A] credibility determination will
only be reversed if ‘the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but
compels it.’” Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2015) (alteration and
emphases in original) (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.
2011).
The many inconsistencies with Chen’s petition and testimony provide
substantial evidence to support the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
Chen testified that he found a home church in China through a friend, but later he
said he started the church himself. He gave inconsistent stories about his release
from the hospital, and he provided conflicting home addresses. Chen also gave
what the IJ and BIA considered an implausible account of his release. And Chen
presented inconsistent documentary evidence. Thus, this case does not involve
“the most extraordinary circumstances” that would permit us to overturn the
agency’s credibility determination. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2010) (quoting Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1138 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)).
Accordingly, Chen’s asylum claim fails, and his withholding of removal claim
does too. Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014)
Finally, because Chen has not shown “that it is more likely than not that . . .
he would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal,” 8 C.F.R. §
2
208.16(c)(2), his CAT claim fails. Chen’s only evidence was his testimony, which
the agency found not credible. Thus, he presented no “evidence relevant to the
possibility of future torture” that shows a likelihood of future torture if he returns
to China. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3).
PETITION DENIED.
3