09-1431-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Lamb, IJ
A 098 350 535
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
1 Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or
2 after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1
3 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this
4 court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation
5 “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not
6 represented by counsel.
7
8 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
9 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
10 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
11 New York, on the 13 th day of April, two thousand ten.
12
13 PRESENT:
14 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
15 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
16 REENA RAGGI,
17 Circuit Judges.
18 _______________________________________
19
20 Ming Xia Lin,
21 Petitioner,
22
23 v. 09-1431-ag
24 NAC
25 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., UNITED STATES
26 ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
27 APPEALS,
28 Respondent.
29 ______________________________________
1 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, New York, New York.
2
3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
4 General, Jamie M. Dowd, Senior
5 Litigation Counsel, Dana M.
6 Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office of
7 Immigration Litigation, Civil
8 Division, United States Department
9 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
14 is DENIED.
15 Petitioner Ming Xia Lin, a native and citizen of China,
16 seeks review of the March 16, 2009 order of the BIA
17 affirming the August 14, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge
18 (“IJ”) Elizabeth A. Lamb denying her application for asylum,
19 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
20 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Xia Lin, No. A 98 350
21 535 (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2009), aff’g No. A 98 350 535 (Immig.
22 Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 14, 2007). We assume the parties’
23 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
24 in this case.
25 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
26 IJ’s decision including the portions not explicitly
27 discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
2
1 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
2 are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also
3 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
4 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
5 credibility determination. The agency reasonably relied on
6 several discrepancies between Lin’s testimony and a letter
7 from her mother, as well as Lin’s demeanor, in finding her
8 not credible. Because Lin does not challenge these
9 findings, they stand as valid bases for the IJ’s adverse
10 credibility determination. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529
11 F.3d 141, 146-147 (2d Cir. 2008).
12 We also find no error in the findings that Lin does
13 challenge. The IJ reasonably found that there were
14 discrepancies within Lin’s testimony regarding the date that
15 she allegedly became pregnant and the date that she was
16 forced to have an abortion. In her brief, Lin argues that
17 the IJ ignored her explanation that she had a cold on the
18 date of her hearing and that she immediately corrected
19 herself after she gave the wrong date. Neither of these
20 arguments, however, would compel a reasonable fact-finder to
21 accept Lin’s explanation or disturb the IJ’s finding. See
22 Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005).
23 Ultimately, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
3
1 adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 at 167. Therefore, the IJ
3 properly denied Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of
4 removal, and CAT relief because the only evidence that Lin
5 would be persecuted or tortured depended on her credibility.
6 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
9 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
10 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
11 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
12 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
17
4