Mingshu Li v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MINGSHU LI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70729
Agency No. A087-886-458
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 30, 2021 **
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Mingshu Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70729
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
An IJ who seeks corroborative evidence “must give the applicant notice of
the corroboration that is required and an opportunity either to produce the requisite
corroborative evidence or to explain why that evidence is not reasonably
available.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011). Li was
represented by counsel and there were multiple hearings over the course of more
than a year at which the IJ requested corroborative evidence and Li had
opportunities to provide it or explain why she could not. In that context, the
agency did not err in faulting Li for the lack of corroborating evidence. See id. at
1094 (“Although it would be desirable for an IJ to ask whether there is a reason
that an applicant fails to provide the corroborative evidence that he has been asked
to produce, the continuance and the hearing itself provides an applicant represented
by counsel with the statutorily required opportunity.”).
In the absence of corroborative evidence, the record does not compel the
conclusion that Li established her eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
See id. at 1094 & n.17. The record also does not compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not Li would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70729
the government if returned to China. See id. Thus, Li’s claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection fail.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --