Jianguo Li v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANGUO LI,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70562
Agency No. A200-788-072
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 4, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and PARKER,*** Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jianguo Li, a native of the Republic of China, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his
asylum and withholding of removal claims. The parties are familiar with the facts,
* 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).
*** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge
for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 7 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1),
and we deny the petition.
We review the BIA’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings,
under the substantial evidence standard. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir.
2014). Factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Smolniakova
v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.2005).
The evidence in the record does not compel an affirmative credibility
determination. The IJ permissibly relied on numerous omissions and
inconsistencies between Li's declaration and his testimony in making the adverse
credibility determination. Many of Li's inconsistencies go to the heart of his
asylum claim. He contradicts himself multiple times about his wife’s medical
procedures. He fails to convincingly explain the timing of and motivation behind
his asylum efforts. Inconsistencies that strike at the heart of one's claim go above
and beyond the requirements for making an adverse credibility determination after
the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005. In sum, substantial evidence supported
the BIA's denial of Li's asylum application.
Li necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal,
which has a higher standard than asylum and, here, was based on the same claims
and evidence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --