Fang Ping Li v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Fang Ping Li v. Gonzales

157 F. App'x 401

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 2005

DocketNo. 03-40414-AG

StatusPublished

This text of 157 F. App'x 401 (Fang Ping Li v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fang Ping Li v. Gonzales, 157 F. App'x 401 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Fang Ping Li, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on this petition for review.

After examining the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Li did not credibly testify about her alleged pregnancy, forcible abortion, and threatened sterilization and thus did not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. We therefore cannot set aside the IJ’s findings of fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Moreover, we find no error of law requiring a remand. Cf Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir.2003).

Review is therefore DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Fang Ping Li, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on this petition for review.

After examining the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Li did not credibly testify about her alleged pregnancy, forcible abortion, and threatened sterilization and thus did not establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. We therefore cannot set aside the IJ’s findings of fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Moreover, we find no error of law requiring a remand. Cf Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 149 (2d Cir.2003).

Review is therefore DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 F. App'x 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fang-ping-li-v-gonzales-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack