Ying Li v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 12 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YING LI, No. 13-74178
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-630-003
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE,*** District Judge.
Ying Li petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”). Li claims that she fled to the United States from China because
*
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 Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
1
Chinese family-planning officials forced her to have an abortion and threatened to
have her sterilized if she did not have an intrauterine device inserted. Li conceded
that she is removable because she came to the United States without a visa or other
valid entry documents. She requested asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The immigration judge (“IJ”)
found Li not credible, denied her relief, and ordered her removed to China. The
BIA dismissed Li’s appeal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and
we deny Li’s petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Li gave
clearly conflicting and evasive testimony about Shan Bin Li’s presence in the
United States, and Shan Bin Li—the putative father and, later, Li’s husband—was
the only witness to many of the events that are central to Li’s asylum claim.
Moreover, Li did not call Shan Bin Li as a corroborating witness or proffer
corroborating medical records even though she easily could have. See Singh v.
Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1271–73 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d
1019, 1023–27 (9th Cir. 2007); Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090–92 (9th Cir.
2000).
2. The evidence in the record other than Li’s discredited testimony does not
“support a finding that ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
2
conclude’” that Li is eligible for asylum. Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336
(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Because Li’s claim for
withholding of removal is based on the same facts as her asylum claim, it too fails.
See id. at 1338 n.3.
3. Li failed to exhaust her claim for relief under the CAT by not presenting
that claim in her brief to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3