NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOFENG ZHAO, No. 16-73394
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-969-416
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 16, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District
Judge.
Xiaofeng Zhao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
***
The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we review the Board’s determination
for substantial evidence. Under that standard, factual findings, including adverse
credibility findings, are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
The Board gave several reasons for affirming the IJ’s finding that Zhao’s
testimony was not credible. For example, the Board concluded that Zhao’s
testimony about the date of his hospital visit after he was released from detention
for his participation in a Christian church conflicted with the hospital record that he
provided. In response, Zhao suggested “maybe the hospital put the wrong date.”
The Board reasonably upheld the IJ’s rejection of that explanation, and the record
does not compel us to conclude to the contrary.
Similarly, the Board determined that Zhao’s testimony, in conjunction with
his documentary submissions in support of his asylum application, created an
inconsistent timeline about a fine imposed for violating a family planning policy.
When given an opportunity to explain the conflicting documents, Zhao stated, “I’m
not sure. This was given by hospital. I didn’t look at it.” The Board identified no
clear error in the IJ’s decision that Zhao’s explanation was not persuasive, and
2
again, the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
The adverse credibility finding provided a sufficient basis for the rejection of
all of Zhao’s claims. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.
3