Jun Li v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Jun Li v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

428 F. App'x 738

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2011

Docket08-71126

StatusUnpublished

This text of 428 F. App'x 738 (Jun Li v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jun Li v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 428 F. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jun Fu Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding that Li submitted a possibly fraudulent sterilization certificate and fine receipt. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.

Li did not advance an argument in support of his CAT claim in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Li contends the record does not support the BIA’s refusal to consider new evidence he submitted on appeal to the BIA, and its implicit denial of his request for remand. To the extent the BIA construed Li’s submission of new evidence as a motion to remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the new evidence did not show that Li’s wife was forcibly sterilized. See Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir.1988) (re *739 quirements for a motion to remand are the same as for a motion to reopen); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jun Fu Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding that Li submitted a possibly fraudulent sterilization certificate and fine receipt. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.

Li did not advance an argument in support of his CAT claim in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Li contends the record does not support the BIA’s refusal to consider new evidence he submitted on appeal to the BIA, and its implicit denial of his request for remand. To the extent the BIA construed Li’s submission of new evidence as a motion to remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the new evidence did not show that Li’s wife was forcibly sterilized. See Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir.1988) (re *739 quirements for a motion to remand are the same as for a motion to reopen); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 F. App'x 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jun-li-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack