JUN XU V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72608 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN ZHONG XU, AKA Junzhong Xu, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72608 Agency No. A200-575-461 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jun Zhong Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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 agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Xu does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that he did not establish he qualified for an exception excusing his untimely filed asylum application. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancies between Xu’s testimony and evidence as to whether he had a fight with family planning officials in China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances). The agency considered Xu’s explanations but was not compelled to accept them. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, Xu’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-72608
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.
