Lei Lin v. Lynch

12-745 Lin v. Lynch BIA Schoppert, IJ A077 743 015 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 TO 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 8th day of July, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LEI LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 12-745 17 NAC 18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,* 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York. 25 * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Thomas B. 3 Fatouros, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Janette L. Allen, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, U.S. Department of 7 Justice, Washington, D.C. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 11 DENIED. 12 Petitioner Lei Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 13 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 14, 2012 decision 14 of the BIA affirming an April 13, 2010 decision of Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert denying Lin’s application for 16 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Lei Lin, No. A077 743 015 18 (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2012), aff’g No. A077 743 015 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. 19 Apr. 13, 2010). Under the circumstances of this case, we review 20 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. 21 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), applying well 22 established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 23 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). In 2 1 doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and 2 procedural history of this case. 3 For applications like Lin’s that were filed before 4 enactment of the 2005 REAL ID Act, an adverse credibility 5 determination must be based on “specific, cogent reasons” that 6 “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding, and any discrepancy 7 must be “substantial” when measured against the record as a 8 whole. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir. 9 2003). Inconsistencies need not be fatal if they are “minor 10 and isolated,” and the testimony is otherwise generally 11 consistent, rational, and believable. See Diallo v. INS, 232 12 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 2000). 13 Lin argues that (1) he adduced new evidence sufficient to 14 rehabilitate his prior incredible testimony pertaining to his 15 family planning claim, and (2) the agency improperly found his 16 testimony relating to Falun Gong not credible on the basis of 17 the prior adverse credibility determination. We are not 18 persuaded. 19 The agency was entitled to discount Lin’s new evidence 20 because it consisted of unsworn letters from interested parties 21 and unsigned, unauthenticated photocopies of purportedly 3 1 official documents. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that weight accorded 3 to evidence lies largely within discretion of agency). 4 Moreover, the prior adverse credibility determination was based 5 on a finding that Lin had submitted falsified documents to the 6 IJ. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d 7 Cir. 2007). 8 As to Lin’s alleged practice of Falun Gong, the agency was 9 justified in relying on the prior adverse credibility 10 determination to find Lin’s testimony and documentary evidence 11 incredible. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170, 171 (2d 12 Cir. 2007) (“[B]ecause the submission of [false ancillary] 13 evidence raises the question of the alien’s overall 14 credibility, even ancillary evidence sometimes supports falsus 15 in uno.”); accord Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d at 146-47. 16 Accordingly, the agency did not err in discounting Lin’s scant 17 documentary evidence and in disbelieving the evidence that 18 depended upon Lin’s credibility. See Qin Wen Zheng v. 19 Gonazles, 500 F.3d at 146-47; Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d at 20 170. 4 1 Because these findings are dispositive of Lin’s petition, 2 we need not review the agency’s alternative grounds for denying 3 Lin relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). 4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 5 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition 6 is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 8 FOR THE COURT: 9 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 5