09-3570-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
DeFonzo, IJ
A095 710 068
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 1 st day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 JIN YU LIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-3570-ag
18 NAC
19
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Hualian Law
26 Offices, New York, New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General, Civil Division; Francis W.
30 Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel;
31 Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney,
32 Office of Immigration Litigation,
33 U.S. Department of Justice,
34 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner, Jin Yu Lin, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 24, 2009,
7 order of the BIA affirming the November 6, 2007, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo denying
9 petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Jin Yu Lin, No. A 095 710 068 (B.I.A. July 24, 2009),
12 aff’g No. A 095 710 068 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 6, 2007).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck v.
17 DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. Corovic v.
19 Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v.
20 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
21 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
22 credibility determination. In making that determination,
23 the IJ found that Lin: (1) testified inconsistently
2
1 regarding the incidents that formed the basis of her claim;
2 and (2) failed to provide sufficient corroboration. The BIA
3 affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, holding that
4 the IJ properly identified material inconsistencies and
5 omissions which supported the adverse credibility
6 determination. We are not compelled to conclude to the
7 contrary. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
8 Cir. 2005).
9 Although Lin argues that she adequately explained her
10 inconsistent testimony, no reasonable factfinder would have
11 been compelled to credit her explanations. See id.
12 Moreover, the IJ reasonably declined to afford Lin’s
13 corroborative evidence weight because the friends who wrote
14 letters were not available for cross-examination and because
15 the letters were insufficient to overcome the numerous
16 inconsistencies and omissions in Lin’s testimony. See Xiao
17 Ji Chen v U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir.
18 2006) (finding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s
19 evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the
20 discretion of the agency).
21 Inasmuch as each of Lin’s claims share the same factual
22 predicate, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is
3
1 fatal to her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
2 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 157 (2d
3 Cir. 2006).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
6 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
7 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
8 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
9 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
4