10-730-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A099 026 744
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 12th day of April, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
GUANG LI LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 10-730-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, N.J.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director; Margaret A. O’Donnell,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Petitioner Guang Li Lin, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 4,
2010 order of the BIA affirming the January 3, 2008 decision
of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Guang
Li Lin, No. A099 026 744 (B.I.A. Feb. 4, 2010), aff’g No.
A099 026 744 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 3, 2008). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529
F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
2
credibility determination. The IJ found that, although Lin
testified that he was arrested when family planning
officials came to take his wife to be forcibly sterilized,
this detail was omitted from his asylum application, the
letter from his wife, his brother’s affidavit, and his
sister-in-law’s affidavit. Because the agency was entitled
to rely on any discrepancy in finding Lin not credible, the
IJ properly relied on Lin’s inconsistent testimony. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534
F.3d at 166-67 n.3 (noting that inconsistencies and
omissions are “functionally equivalent”). Additionally,
contrary to Lin’s contention, no reasonable fact-finder
would be compelled to credit his explanation that he omitted
those details because they were not material to his claim at
the time he filed his application or submitted the
documents. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
Cir. 2005) (holding that the agency need not credit an
applicant’s explanations for inconsistent testimony unless
those explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to
do so).
In finding Lin not credible, the IJ also reasonably
relied on Lin’s admission that he had previously provided
false testimony to an immigration officer at both his
3
airport and credible fear interviews. See Siewe v.
Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that in
certain circumstances “a single false document or a single
instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the
petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated
or unauthenticated evidence”).
Accordingly, under the totality of the circumstances,
the IJ’s credibility determination was supported by
substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii);
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
Because the IJ reasonably concluded that Lin was not
credible as to his claim of past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution, the adverse credibility
determination in this case necessarily precludes success on
his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, as both
claims were based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Lin does not
challenge the denial of CAT relief.
4
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5