Xiang Cao v. Todd Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 29, 2026
• Docket: 20-71822
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2026 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIANG ZHANG CAO, No. 20-71822 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-163-212 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 24, 2026** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: N.R. SMITH, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Xiang Zhang Cao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing

his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum and

* 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). withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See

Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1129–30 (9th Cir. 2025) (“[A]fter the REAL ID Act,

the falsus maxim still allows IJs to make adverse credibility findings based on

material falsehoods, even when they are not central to the basis for the present

claim for immigration relief.”). Although “some of the reasons relied on by the

agency do not support its ultimate credibility finding, once those unsupported

reasons are disregarded, substantial evidence remains to support the agency’s

determination that [Cao] was not credible.” Kalulu v. Bondi, 128 F.4th 1009, 1015

(9th Cir. 2024); see also Li v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An

IJ’s perception of a petitioner’s ignorance of religious doctrine is not a proper basis

for an adverse credibility finding.”).

An applicant for relief from removal who has committed immigration fraud

must come forward with evidence that not only supports his “entitlement to relief

but override[s] his intentional deception of immigration authorities, to the point

that the record compels us to disregard the petitioner’s conscious efforts to secure

an immigration benefit through fraud.” Ani, 155 F.4th at 1129. Cao admitted at

his removal hearing that he lied on his visa application, and the IJ found he had

committed immigration fraud. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

2 20-71822 determination that Cao was not credible, as well as its conclusion that he did not

show entitlement to relief from removal.

PETITION DENIED.

3 20-71822