No. 12-71825 IN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ......gun on Petitioner at least 10 times, forcing...

No. 12-71825

IN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________________________________________

XIANG PING SONG

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

Respondent

PETITIONER’S BRIEF FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Jisheng Li, Esq.

Law Office of Jisheng Li

1188 Bishop Street, Suite 3402

Honolulu, HI 96813

(808) 521-8887

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

RESTRICTED Case: 12-71825, 12/28/2012, ID: 8455966, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 1 of 25

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE 1

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 3

V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 5

VI. ARGUMENT 5

VII. CONCLUSION 16

ADDENDUM A

ADDENDUM B


ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY REFERENCE

8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) 6

8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(4)(C) 6

8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(3)(C) 6

8 U.S.C. §1252 (b)(2) 1

8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(B) 6

I.N.A. §237(a)(1)(B) 2

REAL ID §101(a)(3) 6

REAL ID §101(c) 6

REAL ID §101(d)(2) 6

CASE LAW

Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2004) 12

Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2000) 5

Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1986) 10

Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1994) 15

He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593 (9th Cir. 2003) 16

INS v. Ventura 537 U.S. 12 (2002) 17

Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2009) 6

Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2000) 15

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2009) 7

Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2005) 9, 10

Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1988) 10

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011) 15, 16

Matter of Tomas, 19 I & N Dec. 464 (BIA 1987) 15


1

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252 (b)(2), the petition for review of a final

order of removal shall be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit

in which the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) completed the proceedings. Upon

affirmance of the IJ’s decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

on May 14, 2012, Petitioner’s case is now ripe for review. Because

Petitioner’s claim was initially heard by the Immigration Court located in

Honolulu, Hawaii, this Court has jurisdiction over the instant petition, which

was timely filed with this Court.

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether or not the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination based upon perceived inconsistencies between

Petitioner’s statement at his asylum interview and his testimony at the

hearing, and/or perceived weaknesses in Petitioner’s answers to the

asylum officer’s questions, where the IJ recognized that a problematic

interpreter was used at the interview and where the record reflects that

every single inconsistency that has been brought to Petitioner’s attention

is attributable to inaccurate or mistaken interpretation or translation

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner seeks review of a decision by the BIA dated May 14, 2012,

affirming the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding

of removal.


2

Petitioner, 53 year-old Xiang Ping SONG, is a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China. Administrative Record (“A.R.”) at 886, 956, 959.

On August 31, 2005, Petitioner entered the United States as a nonimmigrant

B-1 visa holder with authorization to remain in the United States for a

temporary period not to exceed November 30, 2005. A.R. at 936, 946, 972.

Removal proceedings were instituted against Petitioner with the service of a

Notice to Appear, Form I-862, charging him removable from the United States

for having remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted

under §237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“the I.N.A.”).

A.R. at 972-73.

During a preliminary hearing, Petitioner, through counsel, admitted all

the factual allegations contained in the Form I-862, conceded his removability,

and requested relief from removal in the form of asylum and withholding of

removal. A.R. at 109, 886-96. A hearing on the merits of Petitioner’s

application for asylum and withholding of removal was conducted on May 6,

2010, July 7, 2010, July 13, 2010, August 11, 2010 and August 27, 2010.

A.R. at 419-666. At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner’s

application for asylum and withholding of removal. A.R. at 381.

Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal with the BIA (A.R. at 374-77),

and submitted a brief in support of his appeal (A.R. at 46-56). The BIA


3

dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on May 14, 2012. A.R. at 1-4. The instant

petition followed.

IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Petitioner is a 53-year-old native and citizen of the People’s Republic of

China. A.R. at 886, 956, 959. Petitioner sought asylum in the United States

because he suffered persecution for his belief. A.R. at 426. Petitioner started

practicing Falun Gong in early 1997 under his father’s influence. A.R. at 426-

28. Falun Gong, labeled as an evil cult, was outlawed by Chinese authorities.

A.R. at 426-28, 505.

Petitioner and his father practiced Falun Gong at home. A.R. at 428.

Before Petitioner’s father passed away in 1999, the Chinese police authorities

had visited Petitioner’s home twice. A.R. 430, 434. On a September 1998

visit, the police told Petitioner and his father to kneel on the ground, and

pushed them. A.R. at 429, 431. The police found Falun Gong materials in the

house and demanded to know whether others were involved. A.R. at 431.

The police ordered Petitioner and his father to make no contacts with other

Falun Gong practitioners and to stop practicing Falung Gong. A.R. at 433.

Petitioner’s father fell ill afterwards and passed away in 1999 and Petitioner

stopped practicing Falun Gong for two years. A.R. at 434.


4

Petitioner resumed his Falun Gong practice in the early 2001. A.R. at

434. On October 23, 2003 when Petitioner and two other people were

practicing Falun Gong at a friend’s home, the police burst in, arrested them

and took them to the local police station. A.R. at 436-38, 458. Petitioner was

detained for three weeks. A.R. at 439, 457, 464. The police used an electric

gun on Petitioner at least 10 times, forcing him to kneel down and to reveal

other Falun Gong practitioners. A.R. at 440, 442-43, 465. In addition,

Petitioner was not provided with adequate food and water. A.R. at 465.

Petitioner’s wife paid money to have him released. A.R. at 440. As

conditions on his release, Petitioner must not leave his hometown, not contact

other Falun Gong members, and not practice Falun Gong. A.R. at 441.

This incident greatly affected Petitioner’s business. A.R. at 443.

Petitioner thus decided to come to the United States to enjoy human rights and

religious freedom. A.R. at 445. Because he was not allowed to leave his

home area, Petitioner was unable to get a passport. A.R. at 445, 506-07.

Using his brother’s identity, Petitioner got a passport in May 2005 and came to

the United States on August 30, 2005. A.R. at 446, 938. Petitioner believes

that he would be persecuted again for being a Falun Gong member and for

having run away from China by assuming another person’s identity. A.R. at

507-09.


5

V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The BIA erroneously predicated its adverse credibility determination

upon inconsistencies between Petitioner’s statement at the asylum

interview and his testimony at the hearing, and/or perceived weaknesses

in Petitioner’s answers to the asylum officer’s questions, where the IJ

recognized that a problematic interpreter was used at the interview and

where the record reflects that every single inconsistency that has ever

been brought to Petitioner’s attention is attributable to inaccurate or

mistaken interpretation or translation

VI. ARGUMENT

Judicial review in the instant case is being sought to examine whether or

not the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

When the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than

adopting the IJ’s decision, the Court’s review is limited to the BIA’s decision,

except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted. Cordon-Garcia

v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the BIA adopted the IJ’s

decision with its own analysis1 and therefore, the Court reviews the BIA’s

decision and the IJ’s opinion to the extent expressly adopted by the BIA. A.R.

1 For an example, on her way to find Petitioner not to be credible, the IJ

identified several aspects of Petitioner’s written statement to be dissatisfactory:

(1) “he does not really explain what happened when the Chinese government

announced that the Falun Gong was going to be designated as an illegal cult”;

(2) “he does not explain what the political situation was in China regarding the

Falun Gong practitioners”; and (3) he “does not explain why he resumed his

Falun Gong practice.” A.R. at 13-14. The BIA’s decision, however, is


6

at 3-4. The BIA’s findings of fact are reviewed under a “substantial evidence

standard,” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and “are

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination. A.R. at 4. Section 101 (a)(3), (c) and (d)(2) of the REAL ID

Act created new standards governing the trier of fact’s adverse credibility

determinations. The new standard reads:

Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors,

a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor,

candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent

plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency

between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements

(whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the

circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal

consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements

with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department

of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in

such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency,

inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or

any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility,

however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made,

the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of

credibility on appeal.

8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum); 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of

removal); 1229a(c)(4)(C) (other relief from removal). These new standards

conspicuously devoid of any direct or implicit reference to the IJ’s discussion

of Petitioner’s written statement. A.R. at 3-4.


7

govern all applications for asylum, withholding, or other relief from removal

made on or after the May 11, 2005 effective date of the act. Since

Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal was filed

with the asylum office on February 9, 2006, these new standards apply.

A.R. at 974.

In finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,

the BIA relied upon two factors. A.R. at 3-4. First, Petitioner’s testimony

was “significantly inconsistent” with his asylum interview regarding his

arrest in 2003 as to the length of his detention and the manner in which he

was treated. A.R. at 3. Secondly, Petitioner provided “weak or vague”

responses to the asylum offer in response to a certain “simple” question. Id.

As discussed below, the BIA’s adverse credibility analysis is not supported

by substantial evidence2 and it must be reversed.

1. Inconsistencies Relating to the 2003 Arrest

According to the BIA, the IJ found that Petitioner’s testimony was

“significantly inconsistent from his asylum office interview regarding his

arrest in 2003, including the amount of time in detention and how he was

2 The Real ID Act did not alter the Court’s substantial evidence standard of

review for adverse credibility determination. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d

1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009).


8

treated”. A.R. at 3. The BIA was mistaken. The IJ’s discussion of the

asylum interview first focused on the following answer that Petitioner

provided to the question “were you arrested in China?”:

“After my father died I stopped practicing and then a friend told

me on October 23, 2003 to come practice. They told me to

come and told me to look. I think there was a communist spy,

and then I was arrested. But because I am a businessman I

could use my connections, and then they released me. I was not

allowed to leave the place I was born, Hanshou County in

Hunan Province.”

A.R. at 17, 672 (emphasis added). The IJ faulted Petitioner for having not

answered a simple “yes”. A.R. at 17. It is clear that Petitioner answered the

question asked of him by saying that “I was arrested”, and he also described

the circumstances under which he was arrested. A.R. at 672. It is extremely

difficult to understand the logic underlying the IJ’s finding that Petitioner

would somehow become less believable for having volunteered additional

information, while the IJ herself expected Petitioner to “focus on what

happened at the time of arrest”, but then turned around to blame Petitioner

for having given a long answer to the question “were you arrested in

China?”. A.R. at 17.

The IJ next turned her attention to Petitioner’s answer of “about five

or six days, it was not that long” to the asylum officer’s question “how long

were you detained?”. A.R. at 17, 672. The IJ found Petitioner’s answer to


9

be “wildly inconsistent” with his testimony that he was held for three weeks

and tortured. A.R. at 17, 439, 457, 464, 672. Petitioner at his asylum

interview never indicated that he was not “tortured”, and as a matter of fact,

he was not asked a single question as to how he had been treated at his arrest

or during his detention. 3 A.R. at 669-73. Therefore, the BIA simply

misstated the record in claiming that Petitioner testified inconsistently with

his asylum interview regarding how he was treated for his 2003 arrest. A.R.

at 3.

It is true that Petitioner testified that he was detained for three weeks,

thus inconsistent with his asylum interview answer that he was detained for

5 or 6 days . A.R. at 439, 457, 464, 672. However, the reliability of the

asylum interview statement in this case is in serious question. First,

Petitioner obviously did not sign on his asylum interview statement nor was

it read back to him to assure its accuracy. A.R. at 667-73. Second, the

asylum officer did not testify at the removal hearing. A.R. at 602. Third,

the Court found that “[c]ertain features of an asylum interview make it a

potentially unreliable point of comparison to a petitioner’s testimony for

purposes of a credibility determination.” Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081,

3 Even the IJ observed that “after the paragraph where [Petitioner] answers

were you arrested in China, there wasn’t a pointed number of follow-up

questions.” A.R. at 603.


10

1087-88 (9th

Cir. 2005). These features include the informal conference

conducted by the asylum officer is quasi-prosecutorial in nature, there is no

indication of the administration of an oath, and there is no transcript of the

interview. Id. All these features are present here. A.R. at 667-73. Fourth,

the Court has repeatedly held, “minor discrepancies in dates that …cannot

be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution

have no bearing on credibility.” Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1091

(9th

Cir. 2005) (quoting Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th

Cir.

1986)). Apparently, the Court views inconsistent dates in the same light as

inconsistent lengths of time. For an example, in Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, the

Court found that inconsistencies are minor such as the inconsistent

testimony of Vilorio-Lopes and his cousin concerning the date of the death

squad incident, the length of time the men were sheltered from the death

squad and whether they paid for their accommodation. 852 F.2d 1137, 1139

(9th

Cir. 1988). The inconsistency at issue involves precisely the length of

time. A.R. at 3, 17.

Most importantly, contrary to the BIA’s belief, evidence in the record

shows a highly likely interpretation error. A.R. at 4. Petitioner testified that

he told the asylum officer that he had been detained for three weeks, and that

he would unlikely have misspoken since the length of time for his detention


11

“was clearly marked in my heart”. A.R. at 595-96. In explaining that the

interpreter might have made a mistake, Petitioner testified as follows:

…the communication between me and the interpreter and Mr. Yang4,

we all have very strong accent. So sometimes I say 10 or 4, it got

mixed up because the language difference. So when she was

interpreting maybe she misunderstood, there is some

misunderstanding in there. Like this time the translation we all

understand, so there is a lot of problem in there. Especially when the

time Mr. Yang prepared the document for us there is a lot of things we

couldn’t communicate. So therefore, there are lots of

misunderstanding between our communication.

A.R. at 596. Undermining the BIA’s finding that Petitioner’s claim of a

misinterpretation is speculative, the record reflects that every single

inconsistency that has been brought to Petitioner’s attention is attributable to

the language problem.5 Even the asylum statement document itself contains

an inconsistency that Petitioner readily explained when given an opportunity.

4 Mr. Yang, who presented himself as an attorney, engaged in unauthorized

practice of law; he was not even a legal immigrant in this country; and he

could not be located after his illegal activities were discovered. A.R. at

51,471, 648, 670-71, 841.

5 For examples, when Petitioner testified that he was arrested on April 23,

2003, inconsistent with his written statement showing a date of October 23,

2003, it turned out that the interpreter mistranslated the month. A.R. at 436-

37, 896. When Petitioner testified that he was arrested and detained only once

with two classmates in 2003, thus inconsistent with his asylum application

showing that Petitioner and his father, who died in 1999, were both detained

and mistreated, it turned out that Petitioner’s prior attorney did not go over his

asylum application with a competent translator. A.R. at 457-63, 476. A

significant omission deemed as a “bad inconsistence” by the IJ in Petitioner’s


12

A.R. at 670. At his asylum interview, Petitioner stated that he entered the

United States on August 31, 2005, inconsistent with his asylum application

showing his date of entry to be “October 30, 2005”. A.R. at 669-70, 886.

When confronted with this inconsistency, Petitioner explained that the

“lawyer” made a mistake. A.R. at 670. The asylum officer obviously

accepted Petitioner’s explanation by crossing out “10/30/05” and

handwriting in “08/31/05”. A.R. at 886. In all fairness, the asylum officer

should have asked Petitioner why he answered “5 or 6 days” to the question

how long he was detained while his asylum application indicates “3 weeks”.

A.R. at 672, 896. In Chen v. Ashcroft, this Court reversed a negative

credibility finding because, inter alia, the petitioner was not afforded an

opportunity to explain a perceived inconsistency. 362 F.3d 611, 618 (9th Cir.

2004). The IJ and the BIA were essentially penalizing Petitioner for the

asylum officer’s failure to ask necessary follow-up questions. A.R. at 3, 18,

672.

2. Weak or Vague Responses at Asylum Interview

The BIA agreed with the IJ in predicating her adverse credibility

determination, at least in part, on that Petitioner “provided weak or vague

responses to the asylum officer in response to being asked how many times

written statement also stemmed from a translation mistake. A.R. at 465-69,


13

he was detained by the public security bureau [“PSB”] or police”. A.R. at 3.

The record contains the following exchanges between Petitioner and the

asylum officer:

Asylum Officer: How many times were you detained by the PSB?

Petitioner: Before 2003 because my father was practicing it. I think

this was in 1998. They came to search our house. They took

some Falun Gong items. They pushed my father to make him

confess. They would grab my arm very strong. After that he

became very weak and passed away.

Asylum Officer: This was in 1998?

Petitioner: Yes, 1998 the later half of the year.

Asylum Officer: Were you ever accused of being anti-governmental

by PSB or any government officials?

Petitioner: Of course they got me because they said I was anti-

government.

Asylum Officer: Do you have Fear?

Petitioner: Of course I am afraid to return to China.

Asylum Officer: Who Fear?

Petitioner: I am sure they are upset that I left secretly.

A.R. at 672-73. According to the IJ, Petitioner “is giving the interviewer

the impression that he was arrested in 1998.” A.R. at 18. However, reading

these questions and answers, no reasonable fact-finder would conclude that

Petitioner ever indicated to the asylum officer that he was “arrested” in 1998.

A.R. at 672-73. Moreover, Petitioner’s description at his asylum interview

of his encounter with Chinese authorities in 1998 does not differ at all from

637-38.


14

his testimony in this regard,6 belying the IJ’s claim that “[t]he

inconsistencies between what the Asylum Officer was told and what

[Petitioner] said in the courtroom are significant.” A.R. at 18, 429-34, 672.

The IJ further found it incomprehensible that Petitioner did not give a

straight answer to a simple question: how many times were you detained.

A.R. at 18. Even though the question “how many time were you detained?”

might appear simple, Petitioner acted reasonably under the circumstances in

not giving a straight answer. Petitioner, by starting out with “[b]efore 2003”,

clearly indicated that he was detained once in 2003, which had been

discussed several questions ago. A.R. at 672. Petitioner then proceeded to

describe what had happened to him in 1998 without specifying whether or

not he was detained. Id. In doing so, Petitioner most likely demonstrated

his uncertainty as to whether or not he was detained in 1998 when the public

security officials “would grab [his] arm very strong”, in light of the

dictionary definition of the word “detain”: “to keep under restraint or in

custody.” A.R. at 672; Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2nd Ed.) at

541.

6 Petitioner testified that the police came to his house in September 1998,

telling him and his father to kneel on the ground, and pushing them. A.R. at

429, 431. Petitioner also testified that the police found Falun Gong materials

in his house and demanded to know whether others were involved. A.R. at

431.


15

More importantly, the asylum statement is unreliable because it has all

the indicia of faulty translation. In addition to all the examples previously

provided, Petitioner answered “I am sure they are upset that I left secretly”

in response to the question “Who fear?”, indicating that Petitioner most

likely understood the question to be: why do you have fear? A.R. at 673.

While acknowledging the IJ’s acceptance of Petitioner’s prior counsel’s

admission of “using a problematic interpreter at the asylum office,” the BIA

did not hesitate at all in discrediting Petitioner based upon his answers

translated by the very same “problematic” interpreter. A.R. at 3-4. The

accepted admission of using a problematic interpreter belies the BIA’s claim

that Petitioner’s claim of possible misinterpretation at his asylum interview

“is highly unlikely and is based in unsupported speculation.” A.R. at 4.

Because this case depends almost exclusively upon Petitioner’s

credibility, fundamental fairness requires assurances that Petitioner

understood exactly what was being asked and that all questions and

responses were accurately translated. See Matter of Tomas, 19 I & N Dec.

464 (BIA 1987). In this Court, a competent translation is considered an

essential element of due process. Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336 (9th

Cir.

1994); see also Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773 (9th

Cir. 2000). The BIA,

however, cited Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445, 461-62 (BIA 2011) in


16

dismissing Petitioner’s claim of possible misinterpretation. A.R. at 4. The

alien in Matter of D-R- has not identified where the IJ relied on incomplete

or incorrectly translated testimony in reaching her decision, and he has not

shown that the outcome would have been different. 25 I&N Dec. at 461-62.

In the instant case, the IJ relied on specific inconsistencies between

Petitioner’s statement at his asylum interview and his testimony at his

hearing, and Petitioner explains that all the identified inconsistencies are

attributable to interpretation problems. Petitioner’s explanation is

reasonable and persuasive in light of the fact that a problematic interpreter

was used at the asylum office, and every single inconsistency at the asylum

interview or at the hearing, whenever brought to Petitioner’s attention, has

been explained away by inaccurate or mistaken interpretation or translation.

436-37. 457-63, 465-69, 476, 669-70, 896. This Court has held that even

where there is no due process violation, faulty or unreliable translation can

undermine the evidence on which an adverse credibility determination is

based. He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th Cir. 2003).

VII. CONCLUSION

The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was based upon erroneous

grounds and it must be reversed. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests


17

that this Court review the record in its entirety, overturn the BIA’s decision,

grant his Petition for Review, and remand for the BIA to address the issue of

Petitioner’s eligibility for asylum and other relief assuming that Petitioner is

credible. See INS v. Ventura 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 28, 2012

/s/ Jisheng Li

JISHENG LI

Attorney for Petitioner


18

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


XIANG SONG ) No. 12-71825

) Agency No. A099-404-173

Petitioner )

v. ) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

) PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. ) 32(E)(4) AND 40-1

)

Respondent )

)

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, I

certify that the attached opening brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface

of 14 points or more and contains 4,198 words.

Dated: Honolulu, HI, December 28, 2012

/s/Jisheng Li

JISHENG LI



19




) Agency No. A099-404-173

Petitioner )

v. ) STATEMENTS OF RELATED

) CASES, PENDENCY OF OTHER

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. ) RELATED PROCEEDINGS &

) CUSTODY STATUS

Respondent )

)

Petitioner hereby states that he is not aware of any related cases;

Petitioner further states that he is not aware of any other related

proceedings; and

Petitioner further states that he is not in the custody of the United States’

Government.


/s/ Jisheng Li

JISHENG LI



20




) Agency No. A099-404-173

Petitioner )

v. ) ADDENDUM TO OPENING

) BRIEF

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. ) Cir. Rule 28-2.8

)

Respondent )

)

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.8, Petitioner hereby submits

addendum to his opening brief, consisting of the following:

A. The BIA’s Decision dated 05/14/2012; &

B. The IJ’s Oral Decision dated 08/27/2010.


/s/ Jisheng Li

JISHENG LI



21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 28th day of December 2012, I filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are

registered with the CM/ECF will be served by the CM/ECF system.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 28, 2012

/s/Jisheng Li

JISHENG LI



22

CERTIFICATE

For Brief in Paper Format

I, Jisheng Li, certify that this brief is identical to the version submitted

electronically on December 28, 2012, pursuant to Rule 6(c) of the

Administrative Order regarding Electronic Filing in All Ninth Circuit Cases.

Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 28, 2012

/s/Jisheng Li

JISHENG LI



No. 12-71825 IN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ......gun on Petitioner at least 10 times, forcing...

Documents

Transcript of No. 12-71825 IN UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ......gun on Petitioner at least 10 times, forcing...