Filed: Aug. 17, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-5115-ag Li v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A096 263 774 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 NOT
Summary: 09-5115-ag Li v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A096 263 774 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 NOTA..
More
09-5115-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A096 263 774
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 17 th day of August, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROGER J. MINER,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 PING LONG LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-5115-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Sheema Chaudhry, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Imran R.
28 Zaidi, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Ping Long Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a November 23, 2009,
7 order of the BIA affirming the April 18, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson, which denied his
9 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ping
11 Long Li, No. A096 263 774 (B.I.A. Nov. 23, 2009), aff’g No.
12 A096 263 774 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 18, 2008). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
17 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005) . The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) .
21 The agency’s adverse credibility determination fits
22 well within those standards. See Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331
23 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding that a n adverse
24 credibility determination must be based on “specific, cogent
2
1 reasons” that “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding).
2 The agency reasonably determined that Li’s assertion,
3 that his wife was in hiding so that family planning
4 officials would not become aware of her pregnancy, was
5 inconsistent with the record evidence, which demonstrated
6 that, three days before she gave birth, she voluntarily went
7 to a government office in order to obtain new identity
8 documents. This inconsistency led the agency to reasonably
9 conclude that, although medical evidence corroborated the
10 fact that Li’s wife was sterilized, Li failed to present
11 adequate credible evidence demonstrating that his wife had
12 been subjected to a forced sterilization.
13 Moreover, the agency reasonably found that this
14 specific discrepancy related directly to the basis of Li’s
15 claim of persecution. Because the discrepancy related to
16 whether Li’s wife actually needed to hide her pregnancy, the
17 discrepancy relates to the issue of whether her
18 sterilization was voluntary or involuntary. Consequently,
19 because there would be no reason for Li to resist his wife’s
20 voluntary sterilization, the inconsistency also affects the
21 veracity of Li’s “other resistance” claim. These findings
22 constitute adequate support for the agency’s adverse
23 credibility determination. See Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of
3
1 Homeland Security, 446 F.3d 289, 294 (2d Cir. 2006). The IJ
2 was not compelled to credit the explanations Li sought to
3 offer for this discrepency. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
4 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
5 Li makes no specific arguments challenging the agency’s
6 denial of his withholding of removal or CAT claims before
7 this Court. Even assuming that Li’s challenge to the
8 agency’s adverse credibility determination suffices to
9 challenge the agency’s denial of each of his applications
10 for relief, that determination undermines each claim as they
11 were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.
12 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v.
13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
4
