Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a Chinese national's petition for review following the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his appeal against an immigration judge's decision. The petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court's jurisdiction is grounded in 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The BIA's adverse credibility determination, which significantly relied on inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony and evidence, was reviewed under the substantial evidence standard and upheld. Consequently, his asylum claim was denied, and he was found ineligible for withholding of removal due to the failure to meet the more stringent criteria. Additionally, the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate a likelihood of being subjected to torture if returned to China, leading to the denial of his CAT claim. The court affirmed the BIA's decision, and the petition for review was denied. This decision is non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 and is not to be cited in future cases, except as permitted by the rule.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof under CATsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Xea's claim under the CAT was rejected due to a lack of evidence that he would likely face torture upon return to China.
Reasoning: Furthermore, Xea did not provide evidence showing it is 'more likely than not' that he would face torture if returned to China, leading the BIA to reject his CAT claim.
Credibility Findings in Asylum Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's adverse credibility finding against Xea was upheld due to inconsistencies in his record.
Reasoning: The BIA's credibility findings are reviewed under substantial evidence, and an adverse credibility finding is upheld unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.
Criteria for Withholding of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: As Xea did not qualify for asylum, he inherently could not meet the stricter requirements for withholding of removal.
Reasoning: As Xea did not qualify for asylum, he failed to meet the stricter criteria for withholding of removal.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court established jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision under the statutory provision.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-Precedential Opinions under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The opinion is not to be published or cited in future cases except as permitted by the rule.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and this opinion is not to be published or cited in future cases except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Standard of Review for Asylum Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petition for asylum was denied because substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding of ineligibility due to inconsistencies.
Reasoning: The petition is denied due to inconsistencies in Xea's record, which undermine his asylum claim.