Li v. Garland

Opinion

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