14-3571-ag
Yulan Li v. Lynch
BIA
Hom, IJ
A098 466 947
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 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 1st day of June, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT: RENNA RAGGI,
7 GERARD E. LYNCH,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 _____________________________________
11
12 YULAN LI,
13 Petitioner,
14
15 v. 14-3571-ag
16 NAC
17 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
18 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
19 Respondent.
20 _____________________________________
21
22 FOR PETITIONER: Jim Li, Esq., Flushing, New York.
23
24 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
25 Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux,
26 Assistant Director; Nicole J.
27 Thomas-Dorris, Trial Attorney;
28 Meaghan L. McGinnis, Law Clerk,
1 Office of Immigration Litigation,
2 United States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
9 Petitioner Yulan Li, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of an August 26, 2014 decision
11 of the BIA affirming a June 19, 2013 decision of an Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Li’s application for asylum, withholding
13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Yulan Li, No. A098 466 947 (B.I.A. Aug. 26,
15 2014), aff’g No. A098 466 947 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 19, 2013).
16 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and record of prior proceedings.
18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
19 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of
20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
21 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review
22 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia
23 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165–66 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission
2 of Li’s asylum application as untimely, notwithstanding her
3 claim of changed circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3),
4 1252(a)(2)(D). While Li contends that the agency erred in
5 rejecting her claim on the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility
6 finding, she fails to raise a colorable legal challenge. See
7 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B),(D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516
8 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 2008).
9 We reject on the merits, however, Li’s challenge to the
10 agency’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief to the
11 extent these claims are based on her fear of future persecution
12 for mailing religious materials to China. Although an
13 applicant may establish a well-founded fear of future
14 persecution through uncorroborated testimony, if credible, see
15 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C), substantial
16 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Li was not
17 credible. See Jin Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 104,
18 113 (2d Cir. 2005) (“We afford particular deference in applying
19 the substantial evidence standard when reviewing an IJ’s
20 credibility findings.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
21 The agency reasonably relied on Li’s prior submissions of
22 admittedly false applications for immigration relief in
3
1 evaluating her credibility in connection with this case. See
2 Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). Further,
3 the agency was not compelled to credit Li’s explanation that
4 she did not know that her hired representatives had filed false
5 applications on her behalf. Indeed, Li herself provided
6 conflicting testimony in this regard, admitting at one point
7 that she knew, at the time her previous asylum application was
8 submitted, that it contained false information that she was a
9 North Korean refugee. See Certified Administrative Record
10 (“CAR”) 117–19, 127, 170; see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
11 166-67; Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
12 Having made its adverse credibility finding, the agency
13 properly relied on Li’s failure to provide credible
14 corroborating evidence to rehabilitate her testimony. See
15 Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).1 While
16 Li contends that the agency was required to determine whether
17 such evidence was reasonably available, the argument fails
18 because this requirement applies only when the IJ or BIA cites
19 inadequate corroboration “as a basis for denying relief to an
20 application who is otherwise credible.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S.
1
We defer—as we must—to the agency’s decision to afford “very
little evidentiary weight” to the unsworn letters from Li’s son
and friend. CAR 55; see Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d
Cir. 2013).
4
1 Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (alteration
2 omitted) (emphasis in original). In any event, Li’s claim that
3 corroborative evidence was unavailable is substantially
4 undermined by her testimony that she had mailed the religious
5 materials at issue as recently as that month. CAR 85.
6 Accordingly, Li’s challenge to the agency’s denial of
7 withholding of removal and CAT relief on the basis of her
8 religious mailings fails on the merits. See Paul v. Gonzales,
9 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).2
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
2
Li has not challenged the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal and CAT relief to the extent such claims were based on
her fear of persecution due to her current religious practice.
See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir.
2005) (deeming such claims abandoned). Thus, we do not
consider them here.
5