Fu Li v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2032
FU LI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 19, 2009 Decided: April 10, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, William C.
Peachey, Assistant Director, Rebecca Hoffberg, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

PER CURIAM:
Fu Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for
review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the
Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2006). It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or
unable to return to his native country “because of persecution
or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds . . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
171, 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2008), and can establish
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
2

-- 2 of 5 --

on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)
(2008). Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004). Credibility findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony
on credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]”
for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989).
“Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent
statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable
testimony . . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Where, as here, the applicant filed his application
for asylum after May 11, 2005, certain provisions of the REAL ID
Act of 2005 regarding credibility determinations are applicable.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). Specifically, “a
trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the
demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness,
the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s
account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s
written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not
under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the
statements were made), the internal consistency of each such
statement, the consistency of such statements with other
3

-- 3 of 5 --

evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of
State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods
in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency,
inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s
claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
This court accords broad, though not unlimited,
deference to credibility findings supported by substantial
evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.
2004). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Administrative findings of
fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2006). This court will reverse the Board only if “the evidence
. . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder
could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias
Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
We find substantial evidence supports the Board’s and
the immigration judge’s finding that Li was not credible with
respect to his membership in Falun Gong. Thus, he failed to
establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution
4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
based on a protected ground. We further find substantial
evidence supports the finding that Li did not show it is more
likely than not he will be tortured when he returns to China as
a result of having left the country illegally.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 5 of 5 --