WEIKE LUO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-72504 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 16 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEIKE LUO, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-72504 Agency No. A200-264-886 MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Weike Luo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Luo’s testimony, in which he stated that the Chinese government forcibly induced his pregnant wife’s early labor, and his asylum interview, in which he stated that the Chinese government forced his wife to have a cesarean section. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[E]ven minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may constitute the basis for an adverse credibility determination.” (quoting Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011))). Luo’s explanations, which themselves contained inconsistencies, do not “compel a contrary conclusion.” See id. at 960–61. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Luo’s corroborative evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Luo’s Convention Against Torture claim because it is based on the same testimony the agency found 2 not credible, and Luo does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49. PETITION 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.
