Hongxin Li v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HONGXIN LI,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70355
Agency No. A 201-037-824
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY,** District Judge.
On January 11, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed
Hongxin Li’s appeal from an immigration judge’s denials of asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
subsequent order of removal to China. Li timely appealed. See 8 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 11 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
§ 1252(b)(1). We have jurisdiction over the BIA’s final order, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2), and we deny Li’s petition for review.
Li is a native and citizen of China. During her immigration hearing in 2014,
Li provided inconsistent U.S. residency addresses and accounts about the last time
she had been outside California. Li’s testimony was also inconsistent about an
incident in China on March 28, 2010, when she was arrested and detained after
attending a house church meeting. Li testified that she was not allowed to call her
parents while in detention, but the immigration judge had seen a letter from Li’s
mother saying that Li called her and asked her to bring money to the police station.
When Li was asked about the discrepancy, the immigration judge noticed that she
seemed nervous. Li testified that her mother may have remembered incorrectly
because the incident happened a long time ago.
The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination
against Li due to the inconsistencies in the record and her demeanor during the
hearing: Li paused for long periods of time and clutched her throat, and, at several
points during the hearing, she laughed when it seemed inappropriate.
The BIA concluded that with respect to persecution, Li’s testimony lacked
credibility, and, even assuming credibility, she had not suffered mistreatment that
rose to the level of persecution. The BIA also concluded that Li failed to establish
a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. Finally, the agency concluded

-- 2 of 4 --

3
that the remaining evidence did not establish a clear probability of torture by the
Chinese government if Li were removed to China.
An applicant seeking asylum bears the burden of proving eligibility for
asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a). An applicant’s
testimony can sustain her burden of proof in an asylum application without
corroboration “only if” the trier of fact is satisfied that the testimony “is credible, is
persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant
is a refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). In making a credibility determination,
the trier of fact may consider “the totality of circumstances,” including: the
applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness;” the “consistency of [the]
statements with other evidence of record;” and “any inaccuracies or falsehoods in
[the] statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
We “must uphold the [BIA]’s adverse credibility determination so long as
even one basis is supported by substantial evidence[.]” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.
2014). Here, the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
determination based on several inconsistencies in the record and his observations
of Li’s demeanor. See, e.g., Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1154–56 (9th Cir.
2014) (discussing demeanor evidence that supported an adverse credibility
finding). Because the immigration judge noted that Li appeared nervous when

-- 3 of 4 --

4
confronted about the letter from her mother that contradicted her testimony, the
immigration judge’s demeanor findings were sufficiently precise to support an
adverse credibility finding. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir.
2017) (per curiam). Substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility
determination. Therefore, the BIA properly dismissed Li's appeal.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --