Xue v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 23-2086
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HONGPING XUE, No. 23-2086 Agency No. Petitioner, A215-923-967 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Hongping Xue, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the

decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition and remand.

“Where the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration

judge’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830

(9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s credibility determinations. Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th

Cir. 2021).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. As an adolescent and young adult, Xue’s parents paid a travel

agency to prepare several visa applications on Xue’s behalf. When the IJ asked

about the veracity of the information contained in those applications, Xue first

testified that only the first visa application contained false information. After being

confronted with inconsistencies in subsequent visa applications, he admitted that

all his applications contained false information. This inconsistency was a “valid

and specific” reason for the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Ruiz-

Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 750 (9th Cir. 2022). Xue’s false visa

applications were made before his alleged persecution in China, and his false

testimony was made after his entry to the United States; neither falls within the

category of false statements made to escape persecution. See Singh v. Holder, 638

F.3d 1264, 1271–72 (9th Cir. 2011).

Despite an adverse credibility determination, we may remand where the

2 23-2086 agency “failed to consider probative evidence in the record.” Guan v. Barr, 925

F.3d 1022, 1034 (9th Cir. 2019). The agency discounted all of Xue’s documentary

evidence on the ground that, because Xue’s family had previously procured

falsified documents to gain entry to the United States, they might have done so

again. But the agency articulated no specific connection between Xue’s past visa

applications—prepared primarily by a travel agency, starting when he was twelve

years old—and several pieces of “independent corroborating evidence” that Xue

submitted in support of his claim of religious persecution. Garcia v. Holder, 749

F.3d 785, 792 (9th Cir. 2014). These included two notices from a villagers

committee indicating that Xue had been placed under house arrest for

“participating in [an] illegal cult organization”; documentation of a government

fine for the same activity; and a hospital diagnosis certificate showing injuries

consistent with his alleged beating by the police.

The agency was under an obligation to assess whether these pieces of

evidence could either “rehabilitate [Xue’s] testimony” or “support [his] claim[s]

independently.” Id. at 791. The agency abused its discretion in failing to do so.

Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001). We therefore grant the

petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.

3 23-2086