CHENG XU V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73238 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 16 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHENG MEI XU; FANGQING WANG, No. 10-73238 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A098-471-796 A078-113-173 v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 11, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Cheng Xu and Fangqing Wang, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of the agency s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252 and deny the petition for review. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). Under the substantial evidence standard, we must uphold the agency s findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013). The record does not compel the conclusion that Xu was a credible witness. The IJ discussed the relevant factors of consistency, demeanor, plausibility, and responsiveness, and gave reasons and examples to support each of the factors. For example, although Xu testified that the abortion occurred on October 27, 1989, the documentary evidence indicates that the abortion occurred on July 10, 1989. Similarly, although Xu testified that she has been pregnant three times and has had one abortion, the documentary evidence indicates that she has been pregnant four times and has had two abortions. The IJ considered Xu s explanations for these inconsistencies, but he was not required to accept them. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We hold that the adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum are supported by substantial evidence. Because Xu did not satisfy the lower standard for proof of asylum, she necessarily did not satisfy the more stringent standard of proof for withholding of removal. Id. at 2 1125. Finally, no other evidence compels the conclusion that Xu more likely than not will be tortured if returned to China. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 49. DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
