Sandong Li v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDONG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72065
Agency No. A201-211-488
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Sandong 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 asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72065
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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Li’s testimony, his asylum application, and his
daughter’s birth certificate as to her date of birth, the omission of an attempt by
family planning officials to arrest Li’s wife for sterilization, and on Li’s false
statements to an asylum officer. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
was reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”); Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility determination properly relied
on an omission where the added details presented more compelling story of
persecution); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum
applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the
rest of his story.”). Li’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject Li’s contention that the
agency did not consider his explanation for his misstatements to the asylum officer.
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Li’s evidence does
not rehabilitate his credibility. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72065
2014). We reject Li’s contention that the BIA should have remanded his case. In
the absence of credible testimony, Li’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --