Jianguo Li v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIANGUO LI, No. 17-70562 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-788-072 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 4, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and PARKER,*** Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jianguo Li, a native of the Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. The parties are familiar with the facts, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings, under the substantial evidence standard. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). Factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.2005). The evidence in the record does not compel an affirmative credibility determination. The IJ permissibly relied on numerous omissions and inconsistencies between Li's declaration and his testimony in making the adverse credibility determination. Many of Li's inconsistencies go to the heart of his asylum claim. He contradicts himself multiple times about his wife’s medical procedures. He fails to convincingly explain the timing of and motivation behind his asylum efforts. Inconsistencies that strike at the heart of one's claim go above and beyond the requirements for making an adverse credibility determination after the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005. In sum, substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of Li's asylum application. Li necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal, which has a higher standard than asylum and, here, was based on the same claims and evidence. 2 PETITION DENIED. 3 17-70562 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jianguo Li v. William Barr 7 November 2019 Agency Unpublished d049a1dd4ab6a0f17f13e544beb017cb263e0a4f

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals