NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANG GUO, No. 20-71094
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-228-080
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2021**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Qiang Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
*
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).
removal.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
“In reviewing an adverse credibility determination, we consider ‘the reasons
explicitly identified by the BIA, and the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s decision in
support of those reasons.’” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir.
2020) (cleaned up) (quoting Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014)).
“We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for
substantial evidence.” Id.
In upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA relied on
relevant factors, including the “consistency” and “inherent plausibility” of Guo’s
account. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Guo testified inconsistently about whether
he and his wife would have to violate the one-child law again before family
planning officials would force his wife to get an IUD and about the date that his
brother, who had a similar asylum claim, was married. Guo provided “not entirely
logical” testimony about his continued fear of repercussions in China given his
acknowledgment that China had modified the law to allow families to have a
second child. These inconsistencies and improbabilities were not “mere trivial
error[s],” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), but rather were
1
The BIA also dismissed Guo’s appeal from the IJ’s decision denying
protection under the Convention Against Torture, but Guo does not seek review of
that decision.
2
important details about the events giving rise to his claim for relief. Although Guo
argues that there are plausible reasons for the discrepancies that do not undermine
his credibility, the IJ considered those explanations and was not required to accept
them. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]o overturn an
IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we must find that ‘the evidence not only
supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.’” (cleaned up) (quoting Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011))).
PETITION DENIED.
3