UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2051

YOU YANG LI, a/k/a You-Yang Li,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: March 10, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

You Yang Li, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant 

Director, Kathryn L. DeAngelis, Richard Zanfardino, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

You Yang Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic 

of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for 

review. 

To be eligible for asylum, Li must show that he has a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground if 

he returns to China. Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 927 (4th 

Cir. 2013). To meet this burden, Li must show that he suffered 

past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of future 

persecution. Id. Establishing past persecution would entitle 

Li to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear 

of persecution. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 

2011). Li can also show a well-founded fear of persecution 

independent of past persecution. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 

182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). Li faces a higher burden of proof to 

establish that he is entitled to withholding of removal because 

he must show a clear probability of persecution on account of a 

protected ground. Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272. If Li fails to 
3

show he is eligible for asylum, he is also ineligible for 

withholding of removal.* Id. 

We review the adverse credibility finding for substantial 

evidence. Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015). 

An adverse credibility determination should be based on factors 

such as the plausibility of the applicant’s account, the 

consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements, 

the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency 

of such statements with other evidence, or any other relevant 

factor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2012); Hui Pan, 737 F.3d 

at 928. A credibility determination may rest on any of these 

relevant factors, even if such factor does not “go[] to the 

heart of the applicant’s claim.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “A 

single testimonial discrepancy, particularly when supported by 

other facts in the record, may be sufficient to find an 

applicant incredible in some circumstances.” Ilunga, 777 F.3d 

at 207; see also Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 273-74 (observing that 

adverse credibility finding may be supported by only a few 

inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions). We conclude 

that, in light of the discrepancies concerning Li’s birthdate, 

 * Li does not challenge the denial of protection under the 

CAT in his pro se informal brief. He has therefore waived 

review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues 

raised in informal brief).
4

his failure to identify his sponsor or recall his New York 

address, and the inconsistent evidence regarding Li’s detention, 

substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. 

We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding 

that Li’s corroborating evidence did not adequately rehabilitate 

his testimony or independently satisfy his burden of proof. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED