United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60336

Summary Calendar

Yanhong Li, 

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 656 946

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Yanhong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of 

the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying, based on an adverse credibility 

determination, Li’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60336 Document: 00515665121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
No. 19-60336

2

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Li claims that, in reaching 

such a determination, the IJ and BIA misconstrued the record concerning:

the dates surrounding her second China-mandated abortion; her

misrepresentations to the Government; and her attendance at family 

planning examinations between 2000 and 2013. 

We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying 

decision only if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Ontunez-Tursios 

v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). When, as here, the BIA affirms 

the decision of the IJ and relies on reasoning provided in the IJ’s decision, we 

review both decisions. See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 

2007). 

Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Ontunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d at 

348. Further, the BIA’s factual findings, including credibility 

determinations, are reviewed under the substantial-evidence test, meaning 

that we may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence 

compels a contrary conclusion. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th 

Cir. 2009). 

Additionally, as in this instance, for claims for asylum and withholding 

of removal, the BIA or “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in

making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the 

circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible”. Id. at 

538 (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). We will 

“defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality 

of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make 

such an adverse credibility ruling”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). To otherwise obtain relief, Li must show, at least, that “any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to find that her testimony is 

credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

Case: 19-60336 Document: 00515665121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020
No. 19-60336

3

The BIA found that Li provided conflicting facts at her asylum 

interview and in her hearing testimony. Li conceded she provided conflicting 

statements in her hearing testimony and at her asylum interview regarding 

her misleading the Government about providing fraudulent documents when 

she applied for a visa. Further, she provided conflicting answers on whether 

she attended mandated gynecological examinations between 2000 and 2013. 

When asked whether she understood the interpreter present at the hearing, 

she testified she did. 

Based on the record, and under the totality of the circumstances, Li 

has notshown that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility 

ruling against her. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. Nor has she shown that “any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to find her testimony credible.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). 

DENIED.

Case: 19-60336 Document: 00515665121 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2020