Filed: Jan. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4382-ag Li v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A090 347 456 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 N
Summary: 09-4382-ag Li v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A090 347 456 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 NO..
More
09-4382-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A090 347 456
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 21 st day of January, two thousand eleven.
5 PRESENT:
6 DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 DE DONG LI, also known as DEDONG LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4382-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
28 Assistant Director; Deitz P. Lefort,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 De Dong Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 25, 2009,
11 order of the BIA affirming the January 14, 2008, decision of
12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan, which denied
13 Li’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
15 De Dong Li, No. A090 347 456 (B.I.A. Sept. 25, 2009), aff’g
16 No. A090 347 456 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 14, 2008). We
17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
20 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
21 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
22 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
24 162, 165-67 (2d Cir. 2008). For asylum applications governed
2
1 by the REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality
2 of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on an
3 asylum applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his
4 account, or inconsistencies in his statements, without
5 regard to whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s
6 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
7 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
8 credibility determination. The agency reasonably relied on
9 the inconsistency in Li’s testimony regarding where on his
10 face he had been bruised. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.
11 Although Li argues that he pointed to the right side of his
12 face to indicate his face as a whole rather than to specify
13 the right side, the agency reasonably declined to credit
14 Lin’s explanation for this inconsistency, as the record
15 establishes that there was no objection to the IJ’s note
16 that Lin had specified the right side of his face. See
17 Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 Moreover, the IJ did not err in relying on Li’s
19 demeanor as additional support for his adverse credibility
20 finding. The IJ noted a number of specific aspects of Li’s
21 demeanor that contributed to his adverse credibility
22 finding, such as Li’s apparent nervousness when his
3
1 testimony was challenged and his shaking and wringing of his
2 hands at crucial points during his testimony. We defer to
3 an IJ’s assessment of demeanor. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81
4 (noting the particular weight accorded to the IJ’s demeanor
5 findings).
6 Because Li’s claims all were based on the same factual
7 predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility determination
8 was a proper basis for denial of his application for asylum,
9 as well as for withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See
10 Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
21
4
