Tiangang Li v. Loretta E. Lynch , 607 F. App'x 767 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIANGANG LI, No. 13-70069
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-702-150
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 9, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: GILMAN,*** GRABER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
Tiangang Li petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). The IJ denied relief because she found Li’s testimony not credible.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Li was not
credible. See Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013). The IJ
permissibly based her adverse credibility determination in part on Li’s testimony
that he returned to China several times after his first arrest, which cast doubt on his
claim that he feared he would be persecuted if he returned there. See Loho v.
Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008). The IJ was not compelled to accept
Li’s explanation that he lost all hope in the government only after his second
detention and interrogation. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.
2011).
Additionally, the IJ did not err in considering Li’s failure to corroborate
certain aspects of his testimony in reaching her adverse credibility determination.
See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2014). Nor did the IJ err in
disregarding Li’s copy of an email purporting to confirm his church attendance in
Singapore, or in rejecting his explanations for his failure to corroborate his
Page 3 of 3
testimony about mailing religious literature to China or attending church in San
Jose.
In the absence of credible testimony, Li fails to establish that he is eligible
for asylum or withholding. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1337–38 & n.3
(9th Cir. 2013); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2. The IJ also found that Li had not presented credible testimony that he
would be tortured upon his return to China. Li did not address his eligibility for
CAT relief in his opening brief and therefore waived any objection to the IJ’s
denial of this claim. See Jie Cui, 712 F.3d at 1338 n.3.
PETITION DENIED.