NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONGXU LI,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-957

Agency No.

A208-082-676

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2023

Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH, HAMILTON,** and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Dongxu Li, a citizen of China, petitions this court to review the decision of 

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

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part as to asylum, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for 

the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-957

withholding of removal, and Li’s insufficient-notice procedural argument; we 

grant and remand in part as to CAT relief.

We review legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial 

evidence. Tomczyk v. Garland, 25 F.4th 638, 643 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc). 

Pursuant to the substantial-evidence standard, “administrative findings of fact are 

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 

the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “The testimony of the applicant may 

be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if 

the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is 

persuasive, and refers to specific facts . . . .” Id. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also id.

§ 1231(b)(3)(C) (applying this standard to withholding of removal); Garland v. 

Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1680 (2021) (“[E]ven if the BIA treats an alien’s 

evidence as credible, the agency need not find his evidence persuasive or 

sufficient to meet the burden of proof.”). 

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that any harm Li

would suffer if removed to China would lack a nexus to a protected ground. See

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357–60 (9th Cir. 2017); see also 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum); id. § 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of 

removal). Generally, “[o]rdinary prosecution for criminal activity” lacks a nexus 

to “a protected ground.” Lin v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010). But 

“[u]nderstanding that persecution may appear in the guise of prosecution, we 

have carved out exceptions to [that] general rule,” including where an applicant 
3 21-957

shows that his prosecution is “pretext[]” for persecution on a protected ground.

Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, the 

record does not compel the conclusion that the Chinese government was 

motivated to prosecute Li on account of the protected grounds he suggests. In 

particular, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chinese 

authorities had a legitimate prosecutorial motive—given that Li handled $1.2 

million of funds that went missing and he could not provide any corroborating 

evidence for his theory that he was framed for refusing to cancel his franchise 

agreement. See Mabugat v. INS, 937 F.2d 426, 430 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Although 

[Petitioner] suspects that he may be the sacrificial victim in a political cover-up, 

he presented no evidence other than his word on that point.”).

2. The IJ provided Li sufficient “notice of the corroboration required, 

and an opportunity to either provide that corroboration or explain why he [could 

not] do so.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 2011). The IJ 

informed Li that he “must provide corroboration to support [his] claim,” 

instructed him to “inform [his] attorney” of any “additional documents,” and 

continued the proceedings for roughly seven weeks. When the proceedings 

resumed, the IJ again “raise[d] the issue regarding no corroborating documents” 

and continued the proceedings for about five more weeks.

3. The BIA committed legal error as to Li’s application for CAT relief 

by failing to consider the medical records and declaration that Li submitted to 

corroborate his assertion that Chinese authorities tortured his wife. “[W]here 
4 21-957

there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, 

a catchall phrase does not suffice, and the decision cannot stand. Such indications 

include misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or 

potentially dispositive evidence.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th Cir. 

2011). Here, Li submitted and the IJ admitted medical records stating that Li’s

then-pregnant wife suffered injuries “caused by [an] electric baton” and that 

“[d]ue to the injury, [she] miscarried,” as well as a declaration from Li’s motherin-law stating that Chinese officials “used [an] electric baton to beat my daughter” 

to the point that she miscarried. The IJ thus misstated the record when she

concluded: “The only proof of [Li’s] wife’s alleged torture by the Chinese 

government was [Li’s] testimony and two pictures he submitted of his wife’s arm 

and leg[] . . . .” (emphasis added). Therefore, we remand for the BIA “to 

reconsider [Li’s] CAT claim in light of” the medical records and declaration. 

Cole, 659 F.3d at 773.1

The petition for review is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. 

Li’s motion for a stay of removal (Dkt No. 8) is GRANTED. The stay of removal 

remains in place pending a decision in this matter by the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. Each party shall bear its own costs. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(4).

1 We reject the government’s argument that Li failed to exhaust 

before the BIA and waived before our court any challenge to the denial of CAT 

relief. In both his appeal to the BIA and his opening brief before our court, Li 

specifically referenced the IJ’s misstatement, argued that there is “ample 

evidence” otherwise, and cited the medical records and declaration.