Narrative Opinion Summary
Mei Tin Xiao, a Chinese national, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary affirmation of an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision that denied his asylum and withholding of removal application. Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, with the review standard being substantial evidence as articulated in Chebchoub v. INS. The petition for review is denied. The IJ's adverse credibility determination is upheld based on significant discrepancies between Xiao’s testimony and the documentary evidence regarding the frequency of his wife’s forced sterilizations, which are central to his claim. Consequently, Xiao's claims for asylum and withholding of removal do not succeed, as supported by precedent in Farah v. Ashcroft. The disposition of this case is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adverse Credibility Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The immigration judge's adverse credibility determination is upheld due to significant discrepancies in the petitioner's testimony.
Reasoning: The IJ's adverse credibility determination is upheld based on significant discrepancies between Xiao’s testimony and the documentary evidence regarding the frequency of his wife’s forced sterilizations, which are central to his claim.
Asylum and Withholding of Removal Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner's claims for asylum and withholding of removal are denied due to the adverse credibility finding.
Reasoning: Consequently, Xiao's claims for asylum and withholding of removal do not succeed, as supported by precedent in Farah v. Ashcroft.
Jurisdiction in Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, with the review standard being substantial evidence as articulated in Chebchoub v. INS.
Precedential Value of Judicial Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The disposition of this case is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent.
Reasoning: The disposition of this case is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for Immigration Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The substantial evidence standard is applied to assess the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmation of the immigration judge's decision.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, with the review standard being substantial evidence as articulated in Chebchoub v. INS.