16-1627 

Li v. Sessions 

BIA 

Nelson, IJ 

A088 805 040

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED 

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE 

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT 

FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE 

(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY 

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

17th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: 

BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

YINGJI LI, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 16-1627 

 NAC 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

 
2 

FOR PETITIONER: Evan Goldberg, Law Office of 

Theodore M. Davis, New York, NY. 

FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General; Stephen 

J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Imran 

R. Zaidi, Attorney, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC. 

_____________________________________ 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

 Petitioner Yingji Li, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, seeks review of an April 28, 2016, decision 

of the BIA affirming a July 29, 2015, decision of an Immigration 

Judge (“IJ”) denying her withholding of removal and relief under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yingji Li, No. 

A088 805 040 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 2016), aff’g No. A088 805 040 

(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 29, 2015). We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 

in this case. 

 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for 

the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 
3 

Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 

standards of review are well established. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 

F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 

There is no merit to Li’s claim that the IJ violated her 

due process rights by failing to hear additional testimony or 

admit new evidence on remand regarding Li’s membership in the 

Chinese Democracy Party (“CDP”). In the immigration context, 

“[t]o establish a violation of due process, an alien must show 

that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her 

claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived her of 

fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 

(2d Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation omitted). 

“Parties claiming denial of due process in immigration cases 

must, in order to prevail, ‘allege some cognizable prejudice 

fairly attributable to the challenged process.’” 

Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) 

(quoting Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8, 20 (1st Cir. 2004)). 

Here, Li was permitted a full and fair opportunity to 

present her case. See Burger, 498 F.3d at 134. During her May 

10, 2011 hearing, Li testified at length regarding her 

membership in the CDP and submitted evidence in support of that 

claim. Li now claims that the IJ should have conducted a 
4 

hearing or taken new evidence after her case was remanded in 

May 2013. But Li appeared before the IJ several times after 

remand and never requested a new hearing or otherwise indicated 

that she had additional evidence to submit. Furthermore, Li 

fails to show actual prejudice because she has not identified 

the additional testimony or evidence she would have submitted. 

See Garcia-Villeda, 531 F.3d at 149; Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 

882-83 (2d Cir. 1994) (“In order . . . to show . . . actual 

prejudice, [a petitioner] must make a prima facie showing that 

[s]he would have been eligible for the relief and that [s]he 

could have made a strong showing in support of h[er] 

application.” (citation omitted)). 

There is no merit to Li’s related argument that the IJ 

abused her discretion by failing to articulate a reason why she 

granted withholding of removal but then denied that same form 

of relief after reopening. Contrary to Li’s suggestion, the 

IJ did not initially grant withholding of removal on the merits 

of the claim, but rather based the grant solely on the parties’ 

stipulation. Once Li withdrew her consent to the stipulation 

and requested reopening, the IJ properly evaluated Li’s claim 

on the merits. 

 
5 

 The BIA declined to consider Li’s claim that she satisfied 

her burden of proof on the grounds that Li failed to argue that 

claim on appeal. Accordingly, we may not consider Li’s 

unexhausted challenge to the IJ’s finding in this regard. See 

Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 

2007) (“[W]e may consider only those issues that formed the 

basis for [the BIA’s] decision.”). We do not reach the agency’s 

rejection of Li’s application for asylum as untimely or the 

denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief insofar as those 

claims were based on Li’s assistance to North Korean refugees 

because Li does not address these rulings in her brief. See 

Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d 

Cir. 2005). 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk