11-72-ag Li v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A089 250 638 

## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

# SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CI** **TATION 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 New 3 

### York, on the 9**th**

### day of August, two thousand twelve. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 7 

### RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 

### SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 

### Circuit Judges**.** 10



### _______________________________________ 11 12 

### HAOLIN LI, 13 

### Petitioner**,** 14 15 

### v. 11-72-ag 16 

### NAC 17 

### ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 18 

### ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 

### Respondent**.** 20



### _______________________________________ 21 22 

### FOR PETITIONER: Matthew J. Harris, Long Island City, 23 

### New York. 24 25 

### FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 26 

### General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior 27 

### Litigation Counsel; Jonathan 28 

### Robbins, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 

### Immigration Litigation, Civil 30 

### Division, United States Department 31 

### of Justice, Washington, D.C. 322 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 

### decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 

### hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for 3 

### review is DENIED. 4 

### Petitioner Haolin Li, a native and citizen of the 5 

### People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 17, 6 

### 2010, order of the BIA affirming the February 17, 2009, 7 

### decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his 8 

### application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 

### under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Haolin 10 

### Li, No. A089 250 638 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 2010), aff’gNo. A089 11 

### 250 638 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 17, 2009). We assume the 12 

### parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 

### procedural history of the case. 14 

### Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion 15 

### that Li failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence 16 

### to support his claim that he would face persecution or 17 

### torture as a Chinese Democracy Party (“CDP”) member. Under 18 

### the REAL ID Act, which applies in this case, “[t]he 19 

### testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the 20 

### applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if . . . 21 

### the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and 223 

### refers to specific facts . . . . In determining whether the 1 

### applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact 2 

### may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence 3 

### of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). It was not 4 

### unreasonable for the agency to require further corroborating 5 

### evidence, as Li’s testimony was sparse and vague, and the 6 

### corroborative documents Li did present failed to mention key 7 

### parts of his claim–including his arrest and detention by 8 

### Chinese officials. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 9 

### The agency’s determination that a particular piece of 10 

### corroborating evidence was reasonably available and should 11 

### have been presented is a finding of fact, which we review 12 

### under the substantial evidence standard, and will not 13 

### reverse unless a reasonable trier of fact would be compelled 14 

### to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable. 15


### See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 16 

### 554, 563, 568 (2d Cir. 2006). 17 

### Here, the agency identified the type of corroborating 18 

### evidence that Li should have presented to corroborate his 19 

### claim, including eyewitness accounts of his arrest (by his 20 

### wife), evidence of physical injury, or any medical treatment 21 

### he received. Li made no effort to corroborate his claim 224 

### with this evidence, stating instead that he did not know why 1 

### his wife failed to mention his arrest in her supporting 2 

### letters, and alternatively that his wife’s letters only 3 

### discussed events that occurred after he departed China. The 4 

### agency reasonably rejected this explanation. See Majidi v. 5 

### Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (the agency need 6 

### not credit an applicant’s explanations unless a reasonable 7 

### fact-finder would be compelled to do so). 8 

### Li further argues that he should not be required to 9 

### submit corroborative evidence of his arrests from his 10 

### persecutors, the Chinese government. However, the pieces of 11 

### additional corroborative evidence that the agency identified 12 

### could be obtained without interaction with the Chinese 13 

### government and thus Li’s argument on this account is 14 

### unavailing. Consequently, substantial evidence supports the 15 

### agency’s determination that Li could reasonably provide 16 

### corroborative evidence as well as its decision to decline to 17 

### credit his explanations for why he did not provide such 18 

### evidence

. 19 

### Moreover, as the agency found that Li had not 20 

### sufficiently corroborated his past persecution claim, the 21 

### agency reasonably found that Li had failed to establish a 225 

### well-founded fear of persecution because there was no 1 

### indication that Chinese authorities were aware that Li had 2 

### previously distributed CDP literature in China or that they 3 

### were aware of his activities in the United States, because 4 

### his activities were not published on the internet and he was 5 

### difficult to identify in pictures. See Hongsheng Leng v. 6 

### Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (“to establish a 7 

### well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any 8 

### evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some 9 

### showing that authorities in his country of nationality are 10 

### either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of 11 

### his activities.”). As the agency did not err in concluding 12 

### that Li failed to establish past persecution or a well13 

### founded fear of future persecution if returned to China, it 14 

### did not err in denying his application for withholding of 15 

### removal, and CAT relief insofar as these claims shared the 16 

### same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 17 

### 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal); Xue Hong Yang 18 

### v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2006) 19 

### (CAT relief). 20 

### For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 21 

### DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 22 

### removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 236 

### is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 

### this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 2 

### oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 3 

### Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 4 

### Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 5


### FOR THE COURT: 6 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 7 8 9 10