Zhi Li v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Per Curiam OPINION filed : DENIED, decision not for publication. David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge; Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judge and David M. Lawson, U.S. District Judge, for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0506n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ZHI QIANG LI,
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
May 21, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
BEFORE: McKEAGUE and DONALD, Circuit Judges; LAWSON, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Zhi Qiang Li petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum application as
Li is a native and citizen of China. He claims to have entered the United States on April 28,
2008. On April 15, 2009, Li filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging that he would be persecuted and tortured if
removed to China because he is a Christian. The IJ concluded that the asylum application was
untimely because Li failed to demonstrate that he filed it within one year of entering the United
States. The IJ granted Li’s request for withholding of removal and, based on that decision, declined
The Honorable David M. Lawson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
Li v. Holder
to address Li’s claim for relief under the CAT. The BIA dismissed Li’s appeal, concluding that the
IJ properly determined that the asylum application was untimely.
On appeal, Li raises the following claims concerning the denial of his asylum application as
untimely: (1) the IJ and BIA erred by denying the application because the evidence established that
it was filed within one year of his entry into the United States; (2) the IJ failed to make an explicit
adverse credibility determination concerning his testimony that he entered the United States on
April 28, 2008, and, to the extent the IJ made such a determination, it was erroneous; (3) the IJ failed
to provide him with a sufficient opportunity to explain the discrepancies concerning when he entered
the United States; and (4) the IJ and BIA erred by relying on his failure to provide documentary
evidence showing when he began living and working in the United States.
Where the BIA affirms an IJ’s ruling and adds its own comments, we review both the IJ’s
decision and the BIA’s additional comments. Lateef v. Holder, 683 F.3d 275, 279 (6th Cir. 2012).
We review de novo questions of law involving immigration proceedings. Ibid.
We cannot review Li’s claims that the evidence established his asylum application was timely
and that he testified credibly because those issues are predominantly factual. See Fang Huang v.
Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640, 651 (6th Cir. 2008). To the extent that Li raises colorable legal claims, his
challenges fail. Despite Li’s argument to the contrary, the IJ explicitly found that Li’s testimony
concerning his date of entry into the United States was not credible, given his assertions in his
asylum application and asylum interview that he entered the United States in February 2008 and
began living and working in Tennessee the following month. Further, the IJ did not deprive Li of
a sufficient opportunity to explain the inconsistencies concerning his date of entry into the country,
Li v. Holder
given that Li addressed the issue during his testimony and explained that the inconsistencies were
the result of nervousness. Finally, the IJ and BIA did not commit legal error by considering Li’s
failure to provide documentary evidence demonstrating when he began living and working in
Tennessee because that evidence should have been reasonably available and was relevant to whether
Li established by clear and convincing evidence that his asylum application was timely. See 8 U.S.C.
Accordingly, we deny Li’s petition for review.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?