Yingji Li v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 727
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Yingji Li, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s April 28, 2016 decision affirming an IJ’s July 29, 2015 denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
- Li asserted persecution claims based on membership in the Chinese Democracy Party (CDP) and assistance to North Korean refugees.
- Li testified about CDP membership at a May 10, 2011 hearing and submitted documentary evidence then; her case was later remanded in May 2013.
- After remand Li appeared multiple times before the IJ but did not request a new hearing or offer additional evidence; she later complained the IJ should have taken new evidence on remand.
- The IJ initially granted withholding of removal based on a parties’ stipulation, but after Li withdrew consent and requested reopening, the IJ adjudicated the claim on the merits and denied relief.
- Li challenged various rulings to the BIA; the BIA declined to consider some arguments as unexhausted, and Li did not brief certain rulings on appeal to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s refusal to take new testimony/evidence on remand violated due process | Li: IJ should have held a hearing and admitted new evidence about CDP membership on remand | Gov’t: Li had full opportunity earlier, made no request after remand, and shows no prejudice | Court: No due process violation; Li had full and fair opportunity and failed to show prejudice |
| Whether IJ abused discretion by not explaining reversal of a prior grant of withholding after reopening | Li: IJ should have articulated reason for granting then denying withholding | Gov’t: Initial grant was based on parties’ stipulation, not merits; reopening permitted merits adjudication | Court: No abuse; initial grant rested on stipulation and IJ properly re-evaluated merits after reopening |
| Whether BIA erred by not considering Li’s claim she met burden of proof | Li: She met burden of proof (claimed on appeal) | Gov’t: Issue not argued to BIA on appeal | Court: Not considered—claim unexhausted, so Court will not review |
| Reviewability of asylum/withholding/CAT rulings based on assistance to North Korean refugees | Li: Challenged these rulings | Gov’t: Some rulings were not briefed to Court | Court: Court did not reach those rulings because Li failed to address them in her brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (articulates applicable standards of review)
- Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2007) (due process requires full and fair opportunity to present claims)
- Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (party claiming due process denial must show cognizable prejudice)
- Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879 (2d Cir. 1994) (to show prejudice, petitioner must make prima facie showing of eligibility and strong support for application)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (court may consider only issues that formed basis of BIA decision)
- Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues not briefed will not be addressed on appeal)