NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIGUO LI, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73581 Agency No. A089

- 752

- 480

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 12, 2019 ** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY, *** PAEZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Weiguo Li, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review
of a decision of t he Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circui t, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 73581

asylum and withholding of removal. Li argues that the agency erred by determining that (1) he was not a credible witn ess and (2) documentary evidence other than his discredited testimony did not independently establish his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition

. We evaluate administrative factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Factual findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contr ary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). This standard is “very deferential” and requires only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Garcia , 749 F.3d at 789 (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 4 01 (1971)); see also
Gu v. Gonzalez , 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) ( recognizing that review of
the BIA’s determinations is “highly deferential”). Substantial evidence support s the agency’s conclusion that Li was not a
credible witness. This conclusi on was based on Li’s “inconsistent, implausible and evasive testimony on key points.” The IJ found, and the BIA affirmed, that there

were several non - trivial in consistencies within Li’s testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 10 44

– 4 6 (9th Cir. 2010) . The IJ also carefully considered and rejected Li’s explanations for these inconsistencies and stated his reasons for3 16

- 73581

doing so. The IJ was required to consider and respond to, but not to accept, these explanations. See So t o - Olarte v. Ho lder , 555 F.3d 1089, 1091

– 92 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Substantial evidence also supported the agency’s determination that Li’s documentary evidence did not independently establish his eligibility for asylum

. To prove eligibility, an applicant bears the burden of proving past persecution or a
well

- founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b); Zehatye v.
Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182 , 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). Where the IJ has determined that an applicant is not a credible witness, the burden of proving eligibility for asylum may still be met by other “evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). The evidence of record presented significant problems of authentication. Many of the documents could only be authenticated by Li’s testimony, which the
IJ declined to accept because he had already determined Li not to be a credible
witness. Letters from family members were unauthenticated and the purported
authors were not available for cross

- examination. Li also refused to authenticate documents with the American consulate in China. Under these circumstances, the IJ did not err by finding that the evid ence did not independently establish Li’s eligibility for asylum.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.