Opinion
No. 08-1121-ag NAC.
November 24, 2008.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
FOR PETITIONER: Yan Wang, New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Senior Litigation Counsel, Margaret A. O'Donnell, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
PRESENT: HON. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge , HON. JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, HON. DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Mei Ling Li, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks review of a February 13, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the June 30, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Alan A. Vomacka, pretermitting her application for asylum, and denying her applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Mei Ling Li, No. A78 433 060 (B.I.A. Feb. 13, 2008), aff'g No. A78 433 060 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jun. 30, 2006). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
As an initial matter, because Li failed to challenge the agency's denial of CAT relief, she has waived any such argument. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 547 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2005). We also lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's decision insofar as he found that Li's asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Indeed, Li fails to present any challenge to the pretermission of her asylum application, much less a constitutional claim or a question of law related to that finding. See U.S.C. 8 § 1252(a)(2)(D); Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n. 1, 547 n. 7. However, we may review her challenge to the agency's denial of her application for withholding of removal.
When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and supplements the IJ's decision, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency's factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008).
The agency's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence. The IJ rested his adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies in Li's testimony, her demeanor, her use of a fraudulent passport when she entered the United States, her failure to provide corroborative evidence, and portions of her testimony that he found inherently implausible. With respect to the inconsistencies, the IJ found that: (1) Li's asylum application stated that she arrived in Los Angeles, but she testified that she arrived in New York City, and (2) Li stated in an affidavit that she left China to avoid being arrested, but then testified that she was not in any danger of arrest when she departed China. Li does not challenge the IJ's inconsistency findings, waiving any such argument. See Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d at 541 n. 1, 547 n. 7. Moreover, the IJ properly found that Li failed to provide corroborative evidence, such as evidence indicating that she attended the boarding school from which she was allegedly expelled because of her pregnancy, or a statement from her cousin who lives in New York regarding Li's family background and her travel to the United States. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that an IJ can base its rejection of a petitioner's claim on the "petitioner's largely uncorroborated, non-credible testimony"). The IJ's unchallenged inconsistency findings, coupled with his corroboration findings, provide sufficient support for his adverse credibility determination. See Corovic, 519 F.3d at 95; Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 334-35.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.