09-2282-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A099 666 549
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 .
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MEI FANG LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2282-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Feng Li, New York, New York.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
3 Director, Theodore C. Hirt,
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, Civil Division, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Mei Fang Lin, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 7, 2009
7 order of the BIA affirming the July 10, 2007 decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel Anne Ferris, denying her
9 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin,
11 No. A099 666 549 (B.I.A. May 7, 2009), aff’g No. A099 666
12 549 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 10, 2007). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d
17 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review
18 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Weng v.
2
1 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513-14 (2d Cir. 2009).
2 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
3 credibility determination. As the IJ found, Lin testified,
4 but did not state in her asylum application, that: (1) she
5 went to the police in China to see if they would help her;
6 and (2) her parents paid money to her suitor’s family. The
7 agency was entitled to rely on these omissions in finding
8 Lin not credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Lin v.
9 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008).
10 Lin further argues that the IJ failed to provide
11 specific and cogent reasons for the finding pertaining to
12 her demeanor. To the contrary, the IJ provided specific
13 examples of behavior and responses that led her to draw an
14 adverse inference as to Lin’s credibility. We accord
15 particular deference to such assessments of an applicant’s
16 demeanor. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1. (2d
17 Cir. 2005).
18 The IJ also reasonably found that Lin was not credible
19 because she conceded that when she was interviewed by
20 immigration officials, she falsely told them that she feared
21 persecution in China because she was Catholic. See Lin v.
22 Gonzales, 445 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006); Siewe v.
3
1 Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). Furthermore,
2 the IJ reasonably rejected Lin’s explanations for her false
3 statements. Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80-81.
4 Finally, to the extent that Lin argues that the BIA
5 erred because it failed to “specifically address” each of
6 the IJ’s adverse credibility findings, we presume that the
7 BIA “has taken into account all of the evidence before
8 [it],” because the record does not compellingly suggest
9 otherwise. See Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315,
10 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, the BIA is under no
11 obligation to parse each of the IJ’s findings in its
12 decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (allowing a single
13 Board member to affirm the IJ’s decision without issuing an
14 opinion); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2) (allowing for a single
15 Board member to summarily dismiss an appeal).
16 Accordingly, considering the totality of the
17 circumstances and all relevant factors, the IJ’s adverse
18 credibility determination was supported by substantial
19 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). As the only
20 evidence of a threat to Lin’s life or freedom depended upon
21 her credibility, the adverse credibility determination in
22 this case necessarily precludes success on her claims for
4
1 asylum and withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales,
2 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Lin does not challenge
3 the IJ’s denial of her CAT claim.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
12
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
17
5