Fengting Li v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FENGTING LI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71352
Agency No. A097-873-053
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Fengting Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
FILED
JAN 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

PR/Research 07-71352 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
findings of fact, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), and de novo
questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Li failed to establish
the harms he experienced in China and the harms he fears upon return are based on
a protected ground. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir. 2004)
(concluding that heavy-handed tactics used by police during an investigation for
legitimate purposes was not persecution on account of petitioner’s political
opinion). In particular, the record does not compel the conclusion that Li sought to
expose corruption that was inextricably intertwined with a government operation.
Cf. Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, Li’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
Li’s contention that the IJ was not an impartial adjudicator because she
relied on inconsistencies and personal conjecture is not supported by the record.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a
due process violation).

-- 2 of 3 --

PR/Research 07-71352 3
Finally, we reject Li’s contention that the IJ erred in making an adverse
credibility determination because the IJ explicitly found Li’s testimony to be
credible.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --