13-4806
Li v. Lynch
BIA
Morace, IJ
A200 911 398
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
1st day of February , two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
PETER W. HALL,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
LIAN ZHONG LI,
Petitioner,
v. 13-4806
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Paul Fiorino, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Judith R.
O’Sullivan, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED.
Petitioner Lian Zhong Li, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29, 2013,
decision of the BIA affirming a May 7, 2012, decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Li’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). In re Lian Zhong Li, No. A200 911 398 (B.I.A.
Nov. 29, 2013), aff’g No. A200 911 398 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
May 7, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
2006). The applicable standards of review are well
established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may,
“[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” base a
2
credibility finding on an asylum applicant’s demeanor, and
inconsistencies in his statements and other record evidence
“without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the
applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Li was not credible as to his claim
that he suffered persecution on account of his resistance to
the family planning officials who allegedly forced his wife to
undergo an abortion.
The agency reasonably relied on Li’s demeanor, noting that
Li gave the impression that his testimony was memorized and that
he was unable to answer simple questions consistently when the
questions deviated from his script. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77,
81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency’s findings regarding Li’s
demeanor and its overall determination that he was not credible
are bolstered by record inconsistencies related to Li’s
testimony about when his wife had her intrauterine device
(“IUD”) removed, how long it took her to become pregnant, when
they discovered that she was pregnant, and how long she was
pregnant prior to the termination of the pregnancy. See Li Hua
3
Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006);
see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. Having questioned
Li’s credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on his
failure to provide credible evidence rehabilitating his
testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
Cir. 2007).
Given the IJ’s findings concerning Li’s demeanor, the
inconsistency of his testimony, and the absence of
corroboration, the agency’s adverse credibility determination
is supported by substantial evidence and is dispositive of Li’s
claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). We do not review the BIA’s denial of
Li’s due process claim because he did not raise it in his brief
to this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4