You Yang Li, a/k/a You-Yang Li v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2051
YOU YANG LI, a/k/a You-Yang Li,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 10, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
You Yang Li, Petitioner Pro Se. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant
Director, Kathryn L. DeAngelis, Richard Zanfardino, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
You Yang Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for
review.
To be eligible for asylum, Li must show that he has a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground if
he returns to China. Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 927 (4th
Cir. 2013). To meet this burden, Li must show that he suffered
past persecution or that he has a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Id. Establishing past persecution would entitle
Li to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear
of persecution. Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir.
2011). Li can also show a well-founded fear of persecution
independent of past persecution. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). Li faces a higher burden of proof to
establish that he is entitled to withholding of removal because
he must show a clear probability of persecution on account of a
protected ground. Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 272. If Li fails to

-- 2 of 4 --

3
show he is eligible for asylum, he is also ineligible for
withholding of removal.* Id.
We review the adverse credibility finding for substantial
evidence. Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199, 206 (4th Cir. 2015).
An adverse credibility determination should be based on factors
such as the plausibility of the applicant’s account, the
consistency between the applicant’s written and oral statements,
the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency
of such statements with other evidence, or any other relevant
factor. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2012); Hui Pan, 737 F.3d
at 928. A credibility determination may rest on any of these
relevant factors, even if such factor does not “go[] to the
heart of the applicant’s claim.” § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “A
single testimonial discrepancy, particularly when supported by
other facts in the record, may be sufficient to find an
applicant incredible in some circumstances.” Ilunga, 777 F.3d
at 207; see also Djadjou, 662 F.3d at 273-74 (observing that
adverse credibility finding may be supported by only a few
inconsistencies, omissions, or contradictions). We conclude
that, in light of the discrepancies concerning Li’s birthdate,
* Li does not challenge the denial of protection under the
CAT in his pro se informal brief. He has therefore waived
review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues
raised in informal brief).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
his failure to identify his sponsor or recall his New York
address, and the inconsistent evidence regarding Li’s detention,
substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding.
We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Li’s corroborating evidence did not adequately rehabilitate
his testimony or independently satisfy his burden of proof.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --