15-876
Lin v Sessions
BIA
Segal, IJ
A201 107 801
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 13th day of April, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-876
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.*
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Douglas
27 E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director;
28 Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney;
* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General of the United States Jefferson B.
Sessions III is automatically substituted for former United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as Respondent.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as above.
1 Nelle M. Seymour, Law Clerk, Office
2 of Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 Petitioner Li Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
11 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 25, 2015, decision
12 of the BIA affirming a May 9, 2013, decision of an Immigration
13 Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding
14 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
15 (“CAT”). In re Li Lin, No. A201 107 801 (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2015),
16 aff’g No. A201 107 801 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 9, 2013). We
17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
20 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
22 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
24 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may,
25 “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, . . . base
2
1 a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or
2 responsiveness of the applicant,” as well as inconsistencies
3 in the record evidence, “without regard to whether” those
4 inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
5 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64
6 & n.2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
7 determination that Lin was not credible as to her claim that
8 Chinese family planning officials forced her to abort a
9 pregnancy.
10 In the present case, the IJ found that Lin failed to present
11 credible evidence in support of her asylum application. In
12 making this determination, the IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s
13 unresponsiveness to questions posed by the IJ and the other
14 litigant in this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see
15 also Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005).
16 That finding is supported by the record.
17 The IJ’s finding of unresponsiveness and the overall
18 credibility determination are bolstered by record
19 inconsistencies regarding the timing of events surrounding
20 Lin’s alleged pregnancy. See Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
21 Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Xiu Xia Lin,
22 534 F.3d at 165-67 & n.3. Moreover, having questioned Lin’s
3
1 credibility, the agency reasonably relied further on her
2 failure to submit medical evidence corroborating her pregnancy.
3 See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007).
4 Given the demeanor, inconsistency, and lack of
5 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility
6 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That determination is dispositive of
8 Lin’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
9 because all three claims are based on the same factual
10 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
11 2006).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
14 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4