Li v. Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 8 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIAO LING LI; WEN XING CHEN, No. 21-1110 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A209-435-211 A209-435-212 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 25, 2026** Honolulu, Hawaii

Before N.R. SMITH, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Xiao Ling Li and her husband, Wen Xing Chen, natives and citizens of

China, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying asylum and

* 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). withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petition for review.

We review the agency’s “factual findings, including adverse credibility

decisions, under the deferential substantial evidence standard.” Zhi v. Holder, 751

F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014). Under that standard, the agency’s factual findings

are “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Li was not a credible

witness. The agency is generally permitted to infer that a witness who deliberately

deceived immigration authorities on earlier occasions may be deceiving authorities

in the present removal proceedings. Ani v. Bondi, 155 F.4th 1118, 1129 (9th Cir.

2025). Li admitted that she gave false information when she applied for a United

States tourist visa in 2015. As the immigration judge found, Li told those lies at a

time when she was not “living in fear of the Chinese government.”

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s rejection of Li’s challenges to the

adverse-credibility determination. The Board did not err in concluding that it could

not consider a revised translation of Li’s bail receipt because Li did not explain

why this new evidence was not previously available. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

And the Board correctly recognized that Li, a witness who had not testified

credibly, was not entitled to notice that certain of her claims should have been

2 21-1110 supported with corroborating evidence. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924,

927 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Because the IJ found [petitioner’s] testimony not credible,

the IJ was not required to give [petitioner] notice and an opportunity to provide

additional corroborating evidence.”).

Without credible testimony or independent documentary evidence to support

Li’s claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal.

The motion to stay removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

3 21-1110