09-1505-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A078 864 264
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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 3 rd day of March, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROBERT D. SACK,
REENA RAGGI,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
QIANG LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 09-1505-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
Respondents.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Thomas D. Barra, Forest Hills, New
York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Sabina M.
Lofty, Trial Attorney, 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.
Qiang Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a March 24, 2009 order of
the BIA, affirming without opinion the July 19, 2007
decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas Mulligan,
denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). In re Qiang Lin No. A078 864 264 (BIA Mar. 24,
2009), aff’g No. A078 864 264 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July
19, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision alone. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d
141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s credibility
determination for substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Because Lin’s application was filed before
the effective date of the REAL ID Act of 2005, see Pub. L.
No. 109-13, § 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231, 305 (2005), we
consider whether the IJ provided “specific, cogent reasons”
2
that “bear a legitimate nexus” to his finding that Lin did
not testify credibly, Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297,
307 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the IJ reasonably found petitioner not credible
based on: (1) his lack of responsiveness to initial
questions, which indicated that he was following a memorized
script; (2) his inconsistent testimony about the number of
times he was questioned and whether he was beaten during his
detention; (3) his inconsistent testimony about whether he
practiced Falun Gong in China; and (4) evidence that his
parents had never been arrested, even though petitioner’s
testimony indicated that the authorities intended to do so.
These specific findings constitute substantial evidence
supporting the IJ’s determination because they “bear a
legitimate nexus” to Lin’s claim that he would be persecuted
in China on account of his Falun Gong practice. Secaida-
Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d at 307.
Before the IJ, Lin attempted to explain prior
inconsistent testimony by referencing nervousness. On
appeal, Lin attributes any inconsistencies to potential
translation errors. A reasonable factfinder would not be
compelled to credit these explanations. See Majidi v.
3
Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, even
if any one of the IJ’s specific findings would not, by
itself, support an adverse credibility determination, the IJ
was entitled to rely on their cumulative effect. See Tu Lin
v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 395, 402 (2d Cir. 2006).
Because the factual predicate for all of Lin’s claims
was the same testimony not credited by the IJ, the agency
properly denied Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4