10-807-ag Li v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A094 046 387 

### 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 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 16 th** **day of February, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 7 **PETER W. HALL,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **LING ZHI LI,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 10-807-ag** 16 **NAC** 17 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent**.** 20

**______________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael** 23 **Brown, New York, NY** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; James E. Grimes, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; William C.** 28 **Minick, Attorney, Office of** 29 **Immigration Litigation, U.S.** 30 **Department of Justice, Washington** 31 **D.C.** 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Ling Zhi Li, a native and citizen of the People’s 5 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 16, 2010, 6 order of the BIA affirming the July 25, 2008, decision of 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied 8 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Ling Zhi Li, No. A094 046 387(B.I.A. Feb. 16, 2010), aff’g 11 No. A094 046 387 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 25, 2008). We 12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 15 BIA’s opinion as well as the portions of the IJ’s opinion 16 not explicitly discussed by the BIA. See Yun-Zui Guan v. 17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review 18 factual findings, including credibility determinations, for 19 substantial evidence, upholding them unless any reasonable 20 adjudicator would be compelled to reach the contrary 21 conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. 223 Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). 1 The agency’s adverse credibility determination is based 2 on substantial evidence given the inconsistencies between 3 Li’s and his sister’s testimony. See 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing that an adverse credibility 5 determination may be based on “the consistency between the 6 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . ., 7 the internal consistency of each such statement, the 8 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 9 . . ., and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such 10 statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency 11 . . . goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”). 12 Although Li argues that the inconsistencies regarding the 13 date of his arrival in the United States and the purpose for 14 taking photographs of him practicing Falun Gong were not 15 truly inconsistencies, the record supports the agency’s 16 finding that he and his sister provided directly 17 contradictory testimony. While Li testified that he arrived 18 in March 2006, his sister testified on multiple occasions 19 that he arrived in 2007 and, when confronted with the 20 discrepancy, testified that Li arrived at the end of the 21 year 2006. Similarly, while Li testified that the 224 photographs of his Falun Gong practice were taken for him to 1 have as souvenirs and not for purposes of his asylum 2 application, Li’s sister testified that they were taken to 3 support the asylum application. Thus, the agency reasonably 4 relied on these inconsistencies in supporting its adverse 5 credibility determination. See id

. 6 While Li further contests the timeliness of his asylum 7 application, see8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), we do not have 8 jurisdiction to review that determination, see id. 9 § 1158(a)(3). Li makes no argument that the jurisdictional 10 bar should not apply to his case. Even if one treats his 11 accusation that the IJ “speculated” as an attempt to frame a 12 reviewable legal question, his argument remains “essentially 13 a quarrel about fact-finding,” and so we lack jurisdiction 14 to hear it. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 15 315, 330 (2d Cir. 2006). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, Li’s pending 18 motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED 19

as moot. 20
FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 22