BO XIN LI, AKA Boxin Li v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BO XIN LI, AKA Boxin Li,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70357
Agency No. A200-575-286
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Bo Xin 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 withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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
AUG 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70357
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
in light of inconsistencies between Li’s testimony and his wife’s testimony
regarding the harm Li experienced and fears for voicing his opposition to China’s
one-child policy, as well as Li’s inconsistent testimony regarding his return trip to
China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). We reject Li’s contention regarding notice and an
opportunity to produce corroborative evidence because the BIA did not rely on
Li’s failure to provide corroboration in affirming the dispositive adverse credibility
determination. In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Li’s withholding
of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Li’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70357
See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d at 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --