Jun Li v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUN FU LI, No. 08-71126
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-543-613
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jun Fu Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d
1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to
support the agency’s finding that Li submitted a possibly fraudulent sterilization
certificate and fine receipt. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.
2004). Accordingly, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.
Li did not advance an argument in support of his CAT claim in his opening
brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Li contends the record does not support the BIA’s refusal to consider new
evidence he submitted on appeal to the BIA, and its implicit denial of his request
for remand. To the extent the BIA construed Li’s submission of new evidence as a
motion to remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
because the new evidence did not show that Li’s wife was forcibly sterilized. See
Rodriguez v. INS, 841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir. 1988) (requirements for a motion to
remand are the same as for a motion to reopen); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
2 08-71126
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish
a prima facie case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-71126