17-364
Lin v. Sessions
BIA
Zagzoug, IJ
A205 444 989
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 14th day of March, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JIE LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-364
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gang Zhou, Law Office of Gang
24 Zhou, New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Stephen J.
28 Flynn, Assistant Director; James
29 A. Hurley, Arthur L. Rabin, Trial
30 Attorneys, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States
32
1 Department of Justice, Washington,
2 DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Jie Lin, a native and citizen of the
9 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 11,
10 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a February 19, 2016,
11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s
12 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
13 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jie
14 Lin, No. A 205 444 989 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2017), aff’g No. A
15 205 444 989 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 19, 2016). We
16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
17 and procedural history in this case.
18 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for
19 summary denial of Lin’s petition for review. Summary denial
20 is warranted only if a petition is frivolous, Pillay v. INS,
21 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995), and Lin has filed his merits
22 brief. Accordingly, we treat the Government’s motion as a
23 response to that brief, and deny the petition.
24 We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and BIA
25 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
2
1 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
2 applicable standards of review are well established.
3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
4 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering
5 the totality of the circumstances,” base an adverse
6 credibility determination on “the consistency between the
7 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements . . .,
8 the internal consistency of each such statement, the
9 consistency of such statements with other evidence of
10 record . . . and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such
11 statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency,
12 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the
13 applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C.
14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
15 163-64.
16 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies between
17 Lin’s testimony and that of his witnesses. For example,
18 Lin initially testified that he introduced his witness and
19 friend, Weiqun Zheng, to his church. But Zheng
20 unequivocally testified that someone else introduced him to
21 the church and that he first met Lin in the church kitchen.
22 When confronted with the inconsistency, Lin’s explanation—
23 that he actually introduced a former coworker from
3
1 Maryland—both introduced new inconsistency and was vague
2 given that Lin could not recall the name of that
3 individual. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d
4 Cir. 2005).
5 The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistencies
6 between Lin’s testimony and that of his second witness, Weng
7 Quan Wong. Lin testified that he and Wong were last in church
8 together the day before the hearing at which they both
9 testified. Lin testified that they did not sit together
10 because he sat toward the back of the church, whereas Wong
11 sat up front because he is older. Wong testified that they
12 sat together during that service. This inconsistency called
13 into question whether they had attended church together or at
14 all and undermined the reliability of their testimony as a
15 whole. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.
16 2007) (“So a single false document or a single instance of
17 false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner)
18 infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated or
19 unauthenticated evidence.”).
20 Finally, the agency reasonably relied on Lin’s failure
21 to rehabilitate his testimony about his church attendance.
22 “An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony
23 may bear on credibility, because the absence of
4
1 corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to
2 rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into
3 question.” Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d
4 Cir. 2007). The IJ did not err in giving limited weight to
5 the evidence Lin did present because he did not proffer the
6 original baptism certificate and the statements from the
7 church were form letters prepared by people who did not
8 testify, one of which contradicted Lin’s testimony that he
9 attended church every week. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d
10 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency’s decision to
11 give limited weight to documentary evidence); Xiao Ji Chen
12 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir.
13 2006) (finding that weight afforded to applicant’s evidence
14 in immigration proceedings lies largely within discretion
15 of agency).
16 In sum, the agency’s credibility finding was supported
17 by substantial evidence. This adverse credibility
18 determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of
19 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based
20 on Lin’s allegation that he will continue to practice
21 Christianity if he is returned to China. See Paul v.
22 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Because the
23 finding regarding the one-year filing deadline is based on
5
1 the dispositive adverse credibility determination, we need
2 not reach Lin’s challenges to the agency’s conclusion that
3 the asylum application was untimely. INS v. Bagamasbad,
4 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and
5 agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
6 decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
7 reach.”).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the Petitioner’s
10 and the Government’s motions for summary denial are DENIED as
11 moot.
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
14
6