UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2368
JIN JIE LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jin Jie Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order from the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for
asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture. Lin claims the adverse credibility
finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that he
met his burden of showing he was entitled to the requested
relief. We deny the petition for review.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes
the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a) (2006). The INA defines a refugee as a person
unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006).
“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death,
torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one
of the enumerated grounds. . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171,
177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility
for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir.
2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2011), and can establish
2
refugee status based on past persecution in his native country
on account of a protected ground. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1). “An
applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject of past
persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of
persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir.
2004).
Without regard to past persecution, an alien can
establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected
ground. Id. The well-founded fear standard contains both a
subjective and an objective component. The objective element
requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a
reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution.
Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.
2006). “The subjective component can be met through the
presentation of candid, credible, and sincere testimony
demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must
have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be
validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be
mere irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal
quotations and alterations omitted).
To establish eligibility for withholding of removal,
an alien must show “that it is more likely than not” that, if he
was removed to his native country, his “life or freedom would be
threatened” on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)
(2006); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).
3
Unlike asylum, withholding of removal is mandatory for anyone
who makes this showing.
A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony
on credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]”
for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989).
“Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent
statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable
testimony . . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). This court accords
broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings
supported by substantial evidence. Camara, 378 F.3d at 367.
The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the law regarding
credibility determinations for applications for asylum and
withholding of removal filed after May 11, 2005, as is the case
here. Such determinations are to be made based on the totality
of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including “the
demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” the
plausibility and consistency of all of the applicant’s
statements, “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.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006).
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
4
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This court will reverse the
Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling
that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite
fear of persecution.” Id. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d
316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency
decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive
unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of
discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir.
2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).
We have reviewed Lin’s challenges to the adverse
credibility finding and conclude that the immigration judge’s
finding is supported by substantial evidence. The immigration
judge provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Lin was
not credible. We also conclude that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Lin failed to establish a well-founded
fear of persecution or that it was more likely than not that he
will be tortured when he returns to China.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
5