Yongli Li v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Yongli Li v. Mukasey

275 F. App'x 687

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2008

DocketNo. 04-76344

StatusPublished

This text of 275 F. App'x 687 (Yongli Li v. Mukasey) 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

Yongli Li v. Mukasey, 275 F. App'x 687 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Yongli 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Li has shown changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding because Li testified that he was detained and that both he and his wife were terminated from their jobs as a consequence of his labor activities, but he did not explain adequately why he omitted this information from his asylum application. See Li, 378 F.3d at 963 (stating that the IJ can reasonably consider the alien’s failure to include a significant allegation of mistreatment in his asylum application). Accordingly, Li’s withholding claim fails.

The BIA properly denied CAT relief because Li did not establish that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. See 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2).

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

**

Yongli 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Li has shown changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding because Li testified that he was detained and that both he and his wife were terminated from their jobs as a consequence of his labor activities, but he did not explain adequately why he omitted this information from his asylum application. See Li, 378 F.3d at 963 (stating that the IJ can reasonably consider the alien’s failure to include a significant allegation of mistreatment in his asylum application). Accordingly, Li’s withholding claim fails.

The BIA properly denied CAT relief because Li did not establish that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. See 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2).

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)

275 F. App'x 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yongli-li-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack