Li v. Attorney General United States, 032116 FED3, 15-2625
|Opinion Judge:||McKEE, CHIEF JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||HAIYAN LI, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent|
|Judge Panel:||Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 21, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 11, 2016
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A087-755-608) Immigration Judge: Honorable Judge Rosalind K. Malloy
Haiyan Li petitions for review of a final order of removal because the Immigration Judge relied upon an exhibit that was not officially part of the record and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals adopted the IJ's decision. According to Li, the record did not allow for meaningful review and the IJ improperly took judicial notice of country conditions in China. Li asks us to remand the BIA's decision back to the IJ. For reasons discussed below, we will deny petition for review.
Li, a native of Fujian Province of the People's Republic of China, entered the United States without inspection in October 2009. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging Li with removability under Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Li conceded removability. She then filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture Act ("CAT"), alleging she was harmed in China as a result of her participation in an underground church and fear that she would be persecuted if she returned to China due to her belief in Christianity and punished for leaving China illegally.
The Immigration Judge determined that even if Li was credible, she failed to establish that she suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution to meet her burden of proof for asylum. The IJ also determined that Li failed to establish that she would be singled out for persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of persons similarly situated. The IJ then denied Li's request for withholding of removal, because her rejection of Li's asylum claim applies equally to the denial of Li's request for withholding of removal. Finally, the IJ found that Li did not establish eligibility for...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP