Court Opinion

ID: 9399211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 15:00:47.747002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.171437
License: Public Domain

20-4218
     Li v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                       Wright, IJ
                                                                    A205 618 942
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                   SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
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.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 2nd day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7            JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
 8            SUSAN L. CARNEY,
 9            MICHAEL H. PARK,
10                 Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   JI LI,
14                   Petitioner,
15
16                   v.                                   20-4218
17                                                        NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20            Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
22
23   FOR PETITIONER:                  Thomas V. Massucci, Esq., New
24                                    York, NY.
25
26   FOR RESPONDENT:                  Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
27                                    Attorney General; Edward E.
28                                    Wiggers, Senior Litigation
 1                                        Counsel; Stephen Finn, Trial
 2                                        Attorney, Office of Immigration
 3                                        Litigation, United States
 4                                        Department of Justice, Washington,
 5                                        DC.

 6        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 7   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

8    ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

9    is DENIED.

10        Petitioner Ji Li, a native and citizen of the People’s

11   Republic of China, seeks review of a December 9, 2020 decision

12   of   the   BIA   affirming       a    June   25,    2018    decision    of   an

13   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,

14   withholding      of   removal,       and   relief   under    the    Convention

15   Against Torture (“CAT”).              In re Ji Li, No. A 205 618 942

16   (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 618 942 (Immig. Ct.

17   N.Y. City June 25, 2018).            We assume the parties’ familiarity

18   with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19        We have reviewed the IJ’s                decision as modified and

20   supplemented by the BIA.             See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of

21   Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v.

22   Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).                   We review the

23   adverse    credibility       determination          under    a     substantial

24   evidence standard, see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67,
                                   2
 1   76 (2d Cir. 2018), and treat the agency’s findings of fact as

 2   “conclusive    unless    any   reasonable      adjudicator   would   be

 3   compelled     to   conclude     to       the   contrary,”    8   U.S.C.

 4   § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 5       “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

 6   relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

 7   determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s

 8   or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and

 9   whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances

10   under which the statements were made), . . . the consistency

11   of such statements with other evidence of record . . . , and

12   any inaccuracies of falsehoods in such statements, without

13   regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood

14   goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other

15   relevant factor.”       Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).       “We defer . .

16   . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the

17   totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable

18   fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”

19   Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008);

20   accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76.             Substantial evidence

21   supports the adverse credibility determination.

                                          3
 1       Li alleged that he fled China because police detained

 2   him for attending underground Christian services in 2008 and

 3   2011 and severely beat him during the second detention.                The

 4   agency reasonably concluded that his false statement about

 5   his 2009 travel outside of China constitutes substantial

 6   evidence for the adverse credibility determination.               In his

 7   application, Li stated that he helped care for his younger

 8   brother and worked odd jobs in China after his 2008 arrest

 9   and began attending church again in late 2010, and he told

10   the asylum officer that he had not traveled outside China

11   before 2012.      When confronted with contrary information that

12   he attempted to reach the United States in 2009, but was

13   denied boarding in Panama and forced to return to Venezuela,

14   Li admitted that he lied.          Contrary to his argument that he

15   was not given a chance to explain, this issue was brought to

16   his attention at both the interview and the hearing.

17       This false statement indicates his willingness to lie

18   and calls into question whether he was in China on the date

19   of the second alleged detention, because he presented no

20   documentary      evidence    of   his    return   to   China   after   his

21   departure   in    2009.     The   record   thus   provides     sufficient

                                          4
 1   support for the agency’s adverse credibility determination.

 2   See Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)

 3   (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from

 4   showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.”);

 5   Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[A]

 6   single false document or a single instance of false testimony

 7   may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of

 8   the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”).

9    Li does not challenge the agency’s additional findings that

10   his corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate his claim.

11   The   adverse    credibility   determination       is   dispositive   of

12   asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all

13   three   forms    of   relief   were   based   on   the   same   factual

14   predicate.      See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d

15   Cir. 2006).

16         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

18   stays VACATED.

19                                    FOR THE COURT:
20                                    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21                                    Clerk of Court

                                       5