Background
Xianmin Cao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The denial was based on an adverse credibility determination regarding Cao’s testimony about his travel history and religious beliefs.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. It found that the Agency’s determination was supported by inconsistencies in Cao’s testimony about whether he entered Vietnam and voluntarily returned to China. The court also noted inconsistencies between Cao’s testimony about his education and his household register document. While the court acknowledged that some reasons relied on by the Agency, such as Cao’s lack of familiarity with Lutheranism, did not support the credibility finding, it held that substantial evidence remained to support the determination once those unsupported reasons were disregarded.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
What it means going forward
The denial of the petition leaves the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order in place, resulting in the denial of asylum and withholding of removal for the petitioner.