Li v. Barr

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60336
Summary Calendar

Yanhong Li,

Petitioner,

versus

William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 656 946

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Yanhong Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of
the immigration judge’s (IJ) denying, based on an adverse credibility
determination, Li’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-60336 Document: 00515665121 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2020

No. 19-60336
2
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Li claims that, in reaching
such a determination, the IJ and BIA misconstrued the record concerning:
the dates surrounding her second China-mandated abortion; her
misrepresentations to the Government; and her attendance at family
planning examinations between 2000 and 2013.
We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s underlying
decision only if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Ontunez-Tursios
v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 348 (5th Cir. 2002). When, as here, the BIA affirms
the decision of the IJ and relies on reasoning provided in the IJ’s decision, we
review both decisions. See Theodros v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir.
2007).
Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Ontunez-Tursios, 303 F.3d at
348. Further, the BIA’s factual findings, including credibility
determinations, are reviewed under the substantial-evidence test, meaning
that we may not overturn the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence
compels a contrary conclusion. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th
Cir. 2009).
Additionally, as in this instance, for claims for asylum and withholding
of removal, the BIA or “an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in
making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the
circumstances establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible”. Id. at
538 (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). We will
“defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality
of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make
such an adverse credibility ruling”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). To otherwise obtain relief, Li must show, at least, that “any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to find that her testimony is
credible. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Case: 19-60336 Document: 00515665121 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2020

No. 19-60336
3
The BIA found that Li provided conflicting facts at her asylum
interview and in her hearing testimony. Li conceded she provided conflicting
statements in her hearing testimony and at her asylum interview regarding
her misleading the Government about providing fraudulent documents when
she applied for a visa. Further, she provided conflicting answers on whether
she attended mandated gynecological examinations between 2000 and 2013.
When asked whether she understood the interpreter present at the hearing,
she testified she did.
Based on the record, and under the totality of the circumstances, Li
has not shown that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility
ruling against her. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. Nor has she shown that “any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to find her testimony credible.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B).
DENIED.
Case: 19-60336 Document: 00515665121 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2020