Court Opinion

ID: 9374319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:44.443113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.529588
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEIDA LI,                                       No.    16-71544

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A087-818-620

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Weida Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

      *
             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).
(“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying

the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID

Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Ashcroft, 736 F.3d

886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies in Li’s testimony as to his baptism and church attendance,

and his admission to using fraudulent documents in his visa applications. See

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances); see also Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th

1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2021) (agency can afford substantial weight to inconsistencies

that bear directly on petitioner’s claim of persecution); Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954,

961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa application supported adverse

credibility determination). Li’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion.

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also

supports the agency’s finding that Li’s documentary evidence did not

independently establish eligibility for relief. See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland,

11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (absent credible testimony, petitioner failed to

establish eligibility for relief). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this

                                           2                                     16-71544
case, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

        Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Li’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not

credible, and Li does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the

conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See id. at

1157.

        The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to remand,

where Li failed to establish that the evidence he submitted was unavailable at the

time of his removal hearing. See Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th Cir.

2003) (affirming denial of motion to reopen because “new” information was

available and capable of discovery prior to deportation hearing); Rodriguez v. INS,

841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The formal requirements of the motion to

reopen and those of the motion to remand are for all practical purposes the same.”).

        PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                   16-71544