The opinion
14-772
Li v. Lynch
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A094 793 323
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 ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
23rd day of March, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
RALPH K. WINTER,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
YONG MIN LI,
Petitioner,
v. 14-772
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.1
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
Brown, New York, New York.
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically
substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Jennifer
Williams, Senior Litigation
Counsel; Neelam Ihsanullah, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States
Department of Justice, Washington
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED.
Petitioner Yong Min Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a March 6, 2014, decision
of the BIA, affirming the June 5, 2012, decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Min Li, No. A094 793 323 (B.I.A.
Mar. 6, 2014), aff’g No. A094 793 323 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June
5, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the BIA’s
and IJ’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review
are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
2
v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). For asylum
applications like Li’s, governed by the REAL ID Act, the agency
may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base
a credibility finding on inconsistencies in an applicant’s
statements and other record evidence “without regard to
whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
The agency’s adverse credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence. Li, by his own admission,
lied in his credible fear interview and on his initial asylum
application when he claimed his wife was sterilized. The IJ
reasonably relied on this admission in making her credibility
determination, particularly given that Li’s dishonesty goes to
the heart of his claim of persecution at the hands of Chinese
family planning officials. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167;
Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2004),
overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007).
The IJ was not required to credit Li’s explanations for his
dishonesty–that he was afraid of being sent back to China and
3
that the smuggler who helped him to enter the United States told
him to lie to U.S. officials. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,
80 (2d Cir. 2005). While it may be true that Li was afraid of
being sent back to China, this explanation undermines his
credibility in a removal hearing, where the specter of removal
is explicit.
Finally, the agency did not err in finding Li’s documentary
evidence insufficient to rehabilitate his credibility. Biao
Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
The letter from Li’s wife is from an interested witness not
subject to cross examination. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); In re H-L-H & Z-Y-Z,
25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010), rev'd on other grounds by
Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012). The agency
was not required to credit the 2012 village committee notice
purporting to corroborate Li’s story. The document was
unsigned, its language was garbled, and it failed to corroborate
significant portions of Li’s story because it did not mention
any prior attempts to sterilize his wife. Xiao Ji Chen, 471
F.3d at 342.
4
Considering Li’s false statements and his lack of reliable
corroborating evidence, the “totality of the circumstances”
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Xiu
Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Therefore, the agency did not err
in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief as
all three forms of relief relied on the same factual predicate.
See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong
Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition
is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5