14-3570
Lin v. Lynch
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A201 124 088
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
26th day of January, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
PETER W. HALL,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
RUI TAI LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 14-3570
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, Law Offices of
Gerald Karikari, P.C., New York, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General; Russell
J.E. Verby, Senior Litigation
Counsel; John D. Williams, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
DENIED.
Petitioner Rui Tai Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of an August 29, 2014, decision
of the BIA affirming a January 28, 2013, decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). In re Rui Tai Lin, No. A201 124 088 (B.I.A.
Aug. 29, 2014), aff’g No. A201 124 088 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
Jan. 28, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528
(2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
2
For asylum applications like Lin’s, governed by the REAL
ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
circumstances . . . base a credibility determination on the
demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or
witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or
witness’s account,” and inconsistencies in an applicant’s
statements and other record evidence “without regard to
whether” they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
Under “the totality of the circumstances,” the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination is based on substantial evidence.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
Lin claimed that he was arrested, detained, interrogated,
and beaten for attending an underground Christian church in
China. Lin initially testified that he was baptized in China
on September 19, 2010. He was asked how he could have been
baptized in China in September 2010 when he came to the United
States in June 2010. Lin explained that September 19, 2010 is
the day his baptismal certificate was issued, that he was
baptized on January 24, 2010, and the reason he gave the
September date was because he did not hear the question
3
correctly. The IJ reasonably declined to credit Lin’s
explanation. Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.
2005).
The IJ also reasonably relied on inconsistencies between
Lin’s testimony and the testimony of his witness, Yi Chun Liu.
Lin testified that, when he came to the United States, he
attended the Chinese Baptist Church, but he later attended the
Chinese Christian Church of Grace. He testified that he took
Liu to the Chinese Baptist Church in August 2010. Liu testified
that he went to church with Lin on August 22, 2010 and that he
could not remember the name of the church he attended, but that
Lin continues to attend the same church. Liu also testified
that he could not remember the date of his own marriage. The
IJ found that these inconsistencies cast doubt on whether Lin
attends church in the United States.
The IJ also found that Lin failed to adequately corroborate
his claim that he is a practicing Christian. Lin failed to
obtain either testimony or written statements from any of his
fellow church members; Lin explained that no one would testify
because they do not have legal status or do not like coming to
court. Considering the inconsistencies between Lin and
4
Liu’s testimony, which cast doubt on Lin’s testimony that he
attends church, the IJ reasonably found that this lack of
corroboration reflected poorly on Lin’s credibility. Biao
Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
Although the above inconsistencies do not concern the harm
Lin allegedly suffered in China, the IJ was entitled to rely
on them, Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, and the IJ was entitled
to rely on the cumulative impact of these inconsistencies to
find Lin not credible. Tu Lin v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402
(2d Cir. 2006). The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is
supported by substantial evidence. Because all three claims
shared the same factual predicate, the IJ reasonably denied
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Paul v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding);
Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d
Cir. 2005) (CAT).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5