Opinion ID: 618994
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yiyao Li

Text: The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Yiyao Li was not eligible for asylum6 or restriction on removal. The IJ found that Yiyao Li was not credible, but explained that regardless of whether he was credible, his claims were not sufficient to qualify for asylum or restriction on removal. The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, but also “agreed with the [IJ] that the evidence of record is insufficient to demonstrate that [Yiyao Li] suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground.” Admin. R. at 484. Yiyao Li first challenges the BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. We need not reach that challenge, however, because we can affirm the BIA’s decision on the merits of Yiyao Li’s application for relief. The incidents giving rise to Yiyao Li’s claim of past persecution are very similar to those described by Qi Hui: a three-day detention that included beatings and being deprived of food and water. Yiyao Li also relies on his wife’s forced abortion (which is similar to Qi Hui’s wife’s forced sterilization). As discussed above with respect to Qi Hui’s claim for past persecution, these incidents would not 6 Unlike Qi Hui, the IJ concluded that Yiyao Li’s asylum application was not time-barred and allowed Yiyao Li to proceed with that claim. -10- compel a reasonable adjudicator to reach a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s determination that Yiyao Li did not suffer past persecution. Yiyao Li’s claim for future persecution likewise fails. His claim is based on the same evidence referenced by Qi Hui that “officials demanded that he return to China to face punishment for his opposition to the family planning policy.” Pet’r Br. at 23. Again, the record does not compel the conclusion that a reasonable adjudicator would reach a decision contrary to the BIA’s determination that Yiyao Li failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.