Filed: Oct. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-2362 Li v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 826 146 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: 16-2362 Li v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A205 826 146 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
16-2362
Li v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A205 826 146
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 16th day of October, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HUI LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2362
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Wei Gu, Albertson, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius,
27 Assistant Director; W. Daniel Shieh,
28 Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Hui Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 10, 2016, decision
7 of the BIA affirming a June 10, 2015, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Li’s application for asylum, withholding
9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Hui Li, No. A205 826 146 (B.I.A. June 10, 2016),
11 aff’g No. A205 826 146 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 10, 2015).
12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
13 and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
15 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
19 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam).
20 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
21 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
22 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s
2
1 . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency
2 of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements
3 with other evidence of record . . . without regard to whether
4 an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart
5 of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see
6 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports
7 the agency’s determination that Li was not credible as to his
8 claim that the Chinese government detained and beat him for
9 protesting the expropriation of his family’s land without just
10 compensation.
11 The agency reasonably relied on the inconsistency between
12 Li’s statement at an asylum interview that he was detained for
13 1 week and his hearing testimony that he was detained for 18
14 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin,
15 534 F.3d at 165-67. The agency did not err in finding the record
16 of Li’s asylum interview reliable because it included a
17 typewritten transcript of the interview and reflected that Li
18 understood the interpreter and was asked questions designed to
19 elicit details of his claim. See Diallo v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d
20 624, 632 (2d Cir. 2006) (providing that “asylum interviews do
21 not call for special scrutiny, as airport interviews do,” and
22 finding reliable for credibility purposes an interview record
3
1 that “contain[ed] a meaningful, clear, and reliable summary of
2 the statements made by [petitioner]” (internal quotation marks
3 and citation omitted)); Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715,
4 721-22 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizing that interview record “bears
5 hallmarks of accuracy and reliability” when it contains “a
6 verbatim account or transcript[,] . . . was conducted in a manner
7 designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim[,] . . . and
8 . . . contains no indication that the alien was reluctant to
9 reveal information or did not understand English or the
10 translations provided by the interpreter.” (internal quotation
11 marks and citations omitted)). Furthermore, the interview
12 record does not support Li’s argument that his statement may
13 have been inaccurately recorded because he verified his answer
14 later in the interview.
15 The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistencies in
16 Li’s evidence regarding whether he had signed a land
17 expropriation agreement, which member of his family had
18 received compensation for his family’s land, and how soon after
19 being injured he received medical care. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3.
21 Li did not provide compelling explanations for these
22 inconsistencies. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
4
1 Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible
2 explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief;
3 he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
4 compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks
5 omitted)).
6 In addition, the agency reasonably relied on Li's failure
7 to rehabilitate his credibility with reliable corroborating
8 evidence. “An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her
9 testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of
10 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
11 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
12 question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.
13 2007)(per curiam). The agency did not err in affording limited
14 weight to unsworn letters from Li’s father, sister, and neighbor
15 in China, as they were interested witnesses. See Y.C. v.
16 Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). The agency also did
17 not err in finding a bail notice and a land expropriation
18 agreement insufficient to rehabilitate Li’s inconsistent
19 statements: the notice and agreement, which were both generic
20 forms with Li’s personal information handwritten into the blank
21 spaces, were not authenticated by any means. See Siewe v.
22 Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An IJ may, either
5
1 expressly or impliedly, rely on falsus in uno to discredit
2 evidence that does not benefit from corroboration or
3 authentication independent of the petitioner’s own
4 credibility.”).
5 In light of the inconsistencies and lack of independent and
6 reliable corroboration, we concluded that the agency’s adverse
7 credibility determination is supported by substantial
8 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534
9 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive of Li’s claims
10 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all
11 three claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
12 v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
