Jie Li v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIE LI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72468
Agency No. A212-989-654
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2022**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: HAWKINS, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Jie Li, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against
* 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
FEB 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Torture (“CAT”). “We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final
orders of removal,” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and deny
the petition.
“We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for
substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir.
2014)). This means that “to reverse such a finding we must find that the evidence
not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (cleaned up); see 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “[I]n assessing an adverse credibility finding . . . we must
look to the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.” Alam v. Garland,
11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (cleaned up). The BIA’s adverse
credibility finding relied on Li’s inconsistent testimony about the days when he first
attended house church meetings and why his wife did not attend those meetings.
The BIA likewise rejected Li’s efforts to rehabilitate his testimony related to his
medical treatment, noting that while it was not relying on the IJ’s observation that
Li’s medical certificate may have been tampered with, the IJ “raised reasonable
credibility concerns” about the content of this document.
Li stated that his initial house church meeting was in March 2016 and that he
attended every other Wednesday and Sunday afterward. Although Li first testified
that his wife did not attend those meetings because he did not have a good
understanding of Christianity at that time, he later stated that she did not come

-- 2 of 4 --

3
because she needed to “stay at home and take care of the kid.” When the IJ noted
that Li’s child was not born until June 2016, Li testified that his second meeting was
in July, before changing his testimony again that it was in April. The IJ observed
that Li’s child was not born at that time either, and Li testified that his wife had to
“stay home because she was pregnant.” Finally, Li stated that his wife did not attend
the church meetings “because she was not interested in things like this.” Although
Li argues that these are only minor inconsistencies, “even minor inconsistencies that
have a bearing on a petitioner’s veracity may constitute the basis for an adverse
credibility determination.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011).
Li was allegedly arrested and beaten after a house church meeting in August
2016. Li described his injuries from this incident as a “crack” on the back of his
head and a concussion and testified that a doctor at the Fuqing hospital dressed his
headwounds, administered an x-ray, and admitted him overnight. But Li’s medical
certificate does not corroborate his testimony and raises credibility concerns, only
stating “obvious traumatic swell on back of head, brain stem structure impaired” as
the diagnosis and leaving the “treatment,” address, and unit number sections on the
certificate completely blank. Li provided no other medical evidence to support his
claim.
Taken together, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. Li challenged none of the other BIA holdings and thus waived those

-- 3 of 4 --

4
arguments. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1070 (9th Cir. 2005). He
accordingly fails to establish his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal
under INA and CAT.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --