NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 13a1035n.06

No. 13-3411

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

HENGMIN LI,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

OPINION

BEFORE: COLE, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Hengmin Li petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Li is a native and citizen of China. He entered the United States in August 2007. In 

2008, Li filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, 

asserting that he had been persecuted by the Chinese government for practicing Christianity. 

The IJ concluded that, because Li testified inconsistently and failed to submit evidence that 

corroborated his claims, he failed to establish entitlement to relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s 

denial of Li’s application.

On appeal, Li argues that the denial of his application was not supported by substantial 

evidence because his testimony was consistent and fully credible, and he adequately explained 

his inability to provide corroborating evidence. Li also argues that, under 8 U.S.C. 
No. 13-3411

Li v. Holder

- 2 -

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to provide the corroborating 

evidence sought by the IJ.

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, but adds its own comments, we review 

both the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s additional remarks. See Ward v. Holder, 733 F.3d 601, 603 

(6th Cir. 2013). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings and credibility 

determinations are reviewable under the substantial-evidence standard. Khozhaynova v. Holder, 

641 F.3d 187, 191 (6th Cir. 2011). Under the substantial-evidence standard, administrative 

findings of fact and credibility determinations are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Id. Under the REAL ID Act, an IJ’s credibility 

determination must be based on the totality of the circumstances. El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

250, 256 (6th Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s determination that Li’s testimony was not fully 

credible and that he needed to submit corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof. See 

Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 367 (6th Cir. 2010); Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 976-77 

(6th Cir. 2009). During his removal hearing, Li testified that, following his arrest, Chinese 

authorities had other inmates beat him until he was unconscious. In his asylum application, 

however, Li did not claim that he was rendered unconscious by the beating and instead asserted 

that he “lied down on the ground to protect [his] head.” When asked about the discrepancy, Li 

initially stated that he was semi-conscious, then asserted that he did not know why his asylum 

application omitted that he was rendered unconscious. In addition, when questioned about why 

he did not submit supporting affidavits from members of his church, Li gave conflicting 

explanations that he and his wife could not find the other church members and that the 
No. 13-3411

Li v. Holder

- 3 -

individuals’ homes were under government surveillance. Given the discrepancies in Li’s 

testimony, we are not compelled to conclude that he was fully credible.

Li waived his arguments that (1) he was denied notice and an opportunity to present the 

corroborating evidence sought by the IJ, and (2) he adequately explained his inability to provide 

the evidence because he failed to raise those arguments in his appeal to the BIA. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(d)(1); see Lin, 565 F.3d at 978.

Accordingly, we deny Li’s petition for review.