Hao Li v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 22 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAO LI, No. 19-71610
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-662-347
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 3, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILER,*** RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Hao Li (Petitioner) petitions this Court for review of a decision
from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial
*
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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT) based on an adverse credibility finding. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Reviewing “factual findings, including adverse credibility
determinations, for substantial evidence,” we deny the petition. Mairena v. Barr,
917 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s credibility determination.
Petitioner omitted on direct examination an interrogation by the police that he
subsequently disclosed during cross-examination. The agency permissibly
determined that a subsequent visit and interrogation by the same police officers
who previously arrested and beat him was not a minor event that could be
justifiably omitted. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (9th Cir.
2016) (holding that substantial evidence supported adverse credibility
determination when petitioner initially omitted “altercations with police” which
told a “more compelling story of persecution”) (alteration omitted).
The agency also permissibly determined that Petitioner’s testimony was not
credible because he was unaware of what a “digital fingerprint” was although he
represented himself as having a computer science background. Despite attempts
by the Immigration Judge (IJ) to determine the basis for this inconsistency,
Petitioner’s answers were meandering and nonreponsive. See Ling Huang v.
2
Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “an adverse
credibility determination” may be based “on the ‘demeanor, candor, or
responsiveness’ of the applicant” and a “non-responsive hesitation[] is sufficient to
support the IJ’s demeanor finding” and “adverse credibility determination”)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).
Finally, Petitioner’s testimony regarding the legality of his conduct was
conflicting. Petitioner’s testimony that he “felt [he] did not do anything wrong”
was inconsistent with his later admission that he violated the law when accessing
medical records at will. See Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1163-66 (9th Cir.
2013) (upholding adverse credibility because of inconsistencies in the petitioner’s
testimony). In the absence of credible testimony, the agency appropriately
determined that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden of establishing eligibility for
relief under the immigration statues. See Ling Huang, 744 F.3d at 1151.
PETITION DENIED.
3