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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN LI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-74118
Agency No. A094-924-784
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, Chief District
Judge.***
1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not err in dismissing
petitioner Jian Li’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Li’s asylum
FILED
DEC 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
application. The IJ and BIA both found that Li failed to meet his burden of proof
for asylum by failing to provide corroborating evidence for his claim.
Li argues that corroborating evidence should not be required because it was
not reasonably obtainable. But substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion
that corroborating evidence was reasonably obtainable. The BIA found that Li
spoke with his girlfriend by phone and that Li’s parents lived in the city. In light
of those facts, we are not “compelled to conclude” that he could not have obtained
evidence supporting his claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); see Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1047–48 (9th Cir. 2010).
Li also argues that he is eligible for asylum based on his religion. He did not
raise that claim before the BIA, so we do not have jurisdiction to consider it. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
2. Li did not challenge the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT
protection in his opening brief. He has waived review of those claims. See
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1058 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --