14-2424
Lin v. Lynch
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A087 992 621
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 16th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIN PING LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2424
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad,
28 Assistant Director; Kristen Giuffreda
29 Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Jin Ping Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
6 of China, seeks review of a June 11, 2014, decision of the BIA
7 affirming the December 6, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Jin Ping Lin, No. A087 992 621 (B.I.A. June 11,
11 2014), aff’g No. A087 992 621 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6,
12 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
15 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of
16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d
17 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review
18 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin
19 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 For asylum applications like Lin’s, governed by the REAL
21 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of
2
1 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on
2 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
3 record evidence “without regard to whether” the inconsistencies
4 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility
6 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances,
7 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a
8 ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008)
9 (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
10 adverse credibility determination.
11 The agency relied on multiple inconsistencies in finding
12 Lin not credible. For example, the agency reasonably
13 considered inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and his
14 credible fear interview regarding when he joined an underground
15 church in China. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725
16 (2d Cir. 2009). Lin testified on direct examination that he
17 joined his underground church in 2007, but later testified that
18 he joined the church in 2009. During his credible fear
19 interview, he also stated that he joined in 2009. The agency
20 was not required to credit his explanation for these
21 discrepancies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d
3
1 Cir. 2005). Moreover, Lin’s credible fear interview contained
2 the required indicia of reliability because: (1) the interview
3 record was typewritten in a question and answer format; (2) the
4 interview was conducted through an interpreter; (3) the
5 interviewer explained to Lin the purpose of the interview and
6 the importance of providing full and accurate testimony; and
7 (4) the interviewer asked questions that were designed to elicit
8 a potential basis for asylum. See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at
9 725-26.
10 The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s initial failure
11 to mention that he was his pastor’s “helper.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534
12 F.3d at 166 n.3. As the IJ observed, this information was
13 relevant because the Chinese government may have considered him
14 a threat if he was more than just a member of his church.
15 Moreover, a statement from Lin’s mother also failed to mention
16 that he was his pastor’s helper. The agency was not required
17 to credit his explanation for omitting this relevant
18 information.
19 The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s initial failure
20 to mention that his parents were leaders in his church and that
21 they had been arrested prior to the 2009 incident. Despite
4
1 Lin’s detailed account of his religious upbringing and his
2 parents’ arrest in 2009, he made no mention that they were ever
3 leaders of the church or that they had previously been arrested.
4 Moreover, in her statement, Lin’s mother described in detail
5 how she and Lin’s father were arrested and beaten in 2009, but
6 failed to mention any prior arrests or that she and Lin’s father
7 were church leaders. Accordingly, Lin’s material
8 inconsistencies and his failure to provide adequate
9 explanations constitute substantial evidence for an adverse
10 credibility determination.
11 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency did not err
12 in finding that his corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate
13 his incredible testimony. An applicant’s failure to
14 corroborate testimony may bear on credibility, either because
15 the absence of particular corroborating evidence is viewed as
16 suspicious, or because the absence of corroboration in general
17 makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has
18 already been called into question. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
19 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Lin argues that the agency
20 did not adequately consider evidence that he was issued a
21 summons by police. However, this evidence does not
5
1 rehabilitate the discrepant testimony that forms the basis of
2 the adverse credibility determination.
3 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings,
4 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
5 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse
6 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum,
7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as the claims were based
8 on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
9 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
17 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6