Hengmin Li v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Per Curiam OPINION filed : DENIED, decision not for publication. R. Guy Cole , Jr., Circuit Judge; Ronald Lee Gilman, Circuit Judge and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a1035n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Dec 18, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE UNITED STATES
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
BEFORE: COLE, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Hengmin Li petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Li is a native and citizen of China. He entered the United States in August 2007. In
2008, Li filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT,
asserting that he had been persecuted by the Chinese government for practicing Christianity.
The IJ concluded that, because Li testified inconsistently and failed to submit evidence that
corroborated his claims, he failed to establish entitlement to relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s
denial of Li’s application.
On appeal, Li argues that the denial of his application was not supported by substantial
evidence because his testimony was consistent and fully credible, and he adequately explained
his inability to provide corroborating evidence.
Li also argues that, under 8 U.S.C.
Li v. Holder
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), he was entitled to notice and an opportunity to provide the corroborating
evidence sought by the IJ.
Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, but adds its own comments, we review
both the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s additional remarks. See Ward v. Holder, 733 F.3d 601, 603
(6th Cir. 2013). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings and credibility
determinations are reviewable under the substantial-evidence standard. Khozhaynova v. Holder,
641 F.3d 187, 191 (6th Cir. 2011). Under the substantial-evidence standard, administrative
findings of fact and credibility determinations are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Id. Under the REAL ID Act, an IJ’s credibility
determination must be based on the totality of the circumstances. El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d
250, 256 (6th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s determination that Li’s testimony was not fully
credible and that he needed to submit corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof. See
Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 367 (6th Cir. 2010); Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 976-77
(6th Cir. 2009). During his removal hearing, Li testified that, following his arrest, Chinese
authorities had other inmates beat him until he was unconscious. In his asylum application,
however, Li did not claim that he was rendered unconscious by the beating and instead asserted
that he “lied down on the ground to protect [his] head.” When asked about the discrepancy, Li
initially stated that he was semi-conscious, then asserted that he did not know why his asylum
application omitted that he was rendered unconscious. In addition, when questioned about why
he did not submit supporting affidavits from members of his church, Li gave conflicting
explanations that he and his wife could not find the other church members and that the
Li v. Holder
individuals’ homes were under government surveillance.
Given the discrepancies in Li’s
testimony, we are not compelled to conclude that he was fully credible.
Li waived his arguments that (1) he was denied notice and an opportunity to present the
corroborating evidence sought by the IJ, and (2) he adequately explained his inability to provide
the evidence because he failed to raise those arguments in his appeal to the BIA. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1); see Lin, 565 F.3d at 978.
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?