NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOBIN GUO, No. 19-72819
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-058-409
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Xiaobin Guo, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
affirming an order by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Guo’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). In doing so, Guo challenges the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination based on Guo’s inconsistencies, contradictions,
and implausibility in his testimony.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings,
including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. See
Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020); Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ and BIA (collectively, the
“Agency”) “may base a credibility determination on . . . any inaccuracies or
falsehoods in [an applicant’s] statements, without regard to whether an
inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and
incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review
[the] decisions” from both. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir.
2016).
Here, the Agency identified three distinct inconsistencies that undermined
Guo’s credibility. First, the Agency found inconsistencies between Gou’s
testimony and documentary evidence regarding his arrest and detention in China in
2010. Guo claims he was arrested while attending a church service at a house on
September 19, 2010. He asserts that he was interrogated, beaten, and then released
on September 26, 2010, after his father paid 30,000 RMB for bail. However,
2
Guo’s application to attend Southern New Hampshire University (“SNHU”) was
dated September 21, 2010. The Agency concluded that it was “impossible for him
to apply to the university if he were being held by authorities as he claims.” It was
reasonably unconvinced by Guo’s arguments that the document was unreliable,
because “it bears his name, the university he sought to attend, and fits the
timeline.” See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009).
Second, the Agency found inconsistencies between Gou’s testimony and
documentary evidence regarding his termination from employment in China. Guo
testified that his employer, a local auto accessories shop, terminated his
employment after his arrest. But Guo does not explain why the notice provided by
his employer included an English translation, though Guo’s native language is
Mandarin. These unresolved inconsistencies undermine his credibility. See
Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1185 n.4 (9th Cir. 2007).
Third, the Agency found inconsistencies between Gou’s testimony and
documentary evidence regarding his reasons for coming to the United States. Guo
testified that he decided to come to the United States in October 2010. But his
application to SNHU was dated September 21, 2010. Guo’s explanation that an
agency he contracted with was responsible for the discrepancy does not compel a
conclusion contrary to the Agency’s finding. See Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610
F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).
3
Guo did not provide documentary evidence, such as information from
SNHU or affidavits from his father or the intermediary who he claims prepared his
visa application, to adequately explain the inconsistencies despite the opportunity
to do so. Thus, the Agency reasonably concluded that the documentary evidence
contained in the record was insufficient to rehabilitate Guo’s claim. See Singh v.
Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 2011); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances,
substantial evidence supports the Agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Agency’s adverse credibility finding renders Guo ineligible for asylum
or withholding of removal. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir.
2017). Likewise, because the central evidence supporting his CAT claim––Guo’s
testimony of his encounters with Chinese authorities––is discredited, his CAT
claim also fails. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2015). The
remainder of the evidence does not “compel the conclusion that [Guo] is more
likely than not to be tortured.” See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1049.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4