LI CHENG V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-72211 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LI QIANG CHENG, Petitioner, No. 14-72211 Agency No. A099-538-847 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 17, 2017 Pasadena, California KOZINSKI and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and GETTLEMAN,** District Judge. Before: “We review the BIA’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence and uphold the BIA’s findings unless the evidence compels a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. page 2 contrary result.” Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013). Cheng has presented no evidence that the I-213 form was inaccurate, see Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995), and has not exhausted his claim that the I-826 form was improperly admitted. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Nor has Cheng established that the immigration judge’s credibility finding lacked support in the record: “[E]ven a petitioner’s minor inconsistencies, when aggregated or when viewed in light of the total circumstances, may undermine credibility.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION DENIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
