17-1092 Li v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A073 609 691 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22nd day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GUANGZHAO LI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1092 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principle Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Leslie 27 McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Siu P. Wong, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Guangzhao Li, a native and citizen of the

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 29, 2017,

7 decision of the BIA affirming a May 24, 2016, decision of an

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of

9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

10 (“CAT”). In re Guangzhao Li, No. A073 609 691 (B.I.A. Mar.

11 29, 2017), aff’g No. A073 609 691 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May

12 24, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered

15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of

16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review

18 are well established. See

(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia

19 Lin v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008) (per

20 curiam)(applying substantial evidence review to factual

21 findings).

2 1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

2 determination that Li was not credible. And, even assuming

3 Li’s credibility as to his practice of Christianity, Li did

4 not establish a pattern or practice of persecution of

5 underground Christian church participants in his home

6 province of Fujian. Each issue is discussed in turn.

7 Adverse Credibility Determination

8 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all

9 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility

10 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s

11 . . . written and oral statements . . . , the internal

12 consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of

13 such statements with other evidence of record . . . without

14 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood

15 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.

16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891

(2d Cir. 2018); Xiu Xia Lin,

.

18 The adverse credibility determination is supported by

19 substantial evidence given the multiple inconsistencies in

20 Li’s statements and evidence.

21 Li was inconsistent about the sole allegation of past

22 persecution in April 2012. He was inconsistent about the

3 1 number of worshippers who were arrested with him, the details

2 of his three interrogations in detention, where and what the

3 police used to beat him, the number of days he was detained,

4 how long he remained in China after his release from

5 detention, and who baptized him in China. See 8 U.S.C.

6 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). All of these inconsistencies are

7 reflected in the record. And Li did not provide compelling

8 explanations or otherwise rehabilitate his testimony with

9 reliable corroborating evidence. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430

(2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than

11 offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements

12 to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-

13 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal

14 quotation marks omitted)); see also Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496

(2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“An applicant’s

16 failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on

17 credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general

18 makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has

19 already been called into question.”).

20 Given the multiple inconsistencies and the lack of

21 reliable corroboration, the adverse credibility determination

22 is supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534

4 1 F.3d at 165-66. That determination is dispositive of asylum,

2 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three

3 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.

4 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2006).

5 Although this adverse credibility determination is

6 dispositive, the BIA addressed Li’s claim that there is a

7 pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in China.

8 As discussed below, we find no error in the agency’s

9 conclusion that Li failed to establish a pattern or practice

10 of persecution.

11 Pattern and Practice Claim

12 Even assuming Li’s credibility as to his ongoing

13 practice of Christianity, he failed to document the

14 “systemic or pervasive” persecution of Christians

15 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of

16 persecution of similarly situated individuals in China.

17 See

(b)(2)(iii); In re A-M-, 23 I. & N.

18 Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005) (explaining that pattern or

19 practice of persecution requires “systemic or pervasive”

20 persecution). The country conditions evidence in the

21 record established that tens of millions of individuals

22 practice in unregistered churches in China, and that in

5 1 some areas such practice is tolerated without interference.

2 Further, the record includes no evidence of mistreatment of

3 Christians in Li’s home province of Fujian. See Jian Hui

4 Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008)

5 (explaining that the BIA does not err in requiring

6 localized evidence of persecution when the record reflects

7 wide variances in how policies are understood and enforced

8 throughout China).

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

10 DENIED.

11 FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 13 Clerk of Court

6