11-761-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A094 934 263
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 26th day of March, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.1
______________________________________
GUANG ZE LIN, AKA GUANGZHI LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 11-761-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Lewis G. Hu, New York, N.Y.
1
The Honorable Roger J. Miner, originally a member
of the panel, died on February 18, 2012. The two
remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement,
have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d
Cir. IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457
(2d Cir. 1998).
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Michael P. Lindemann,
Assistant Director; Aaron R. Petty,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, 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.
Petitioner Guang Ze Lin, a native and citizen of China,
seeks review of a February 2, 2011, order of the BIA
affirming the January 20, 2009, decision of Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Guang Ze Lin, No.
A094 934 263 (B.I.A. Feb. 2, 2011), aff’g No. A094 934 263
(Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 20, 2009). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
2
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)(2006); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
Lin challenges the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, arguing that he was credible regarding his
past harm arising from his practice of Christianity. For
asylum applications, such as this one, governed by the REAL
ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the
circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum
applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” and
inconsistencies in his or her statements, without regard to
whether they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)(2006). In this case,
inconsistencies and omissions in Lin’s statements support
the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia
Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2008)(per curiam)
(providing that, for purposes of analyzing a credibility
determination, “[a]n inconsistency and an omission are . . .
functionally equivalent”).
As the IJ found, Lin did not mention any past
mistreatment as a Christian during his March 2007 credible
fear interview. Indeed, during that interview he stated
that he was a Buddhist. The IJ reasonably rejected Lin’s
3
explanation that he described himself as a Buddhist as he
had not been baptized at the time of that interview, because
in his asylum application, he stated that he became a
Christian in December 2005. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430
F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than
offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent
statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a
reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit his
testimony.” (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks
omitted)). Additionally, as the IJ noted, while Lin
testified that after he was released from detention
government officials searched his house for Bibles, he did
not mention that event in his affidavit in support of his
asylum application. Together, the omissions and
inconsistencies in Lin’s statements provide substantial
evidence for the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)(2006).
Lin’s argument that the IJ improperly speculated about
the plausibility of his November 2006 arrest on rape charges
and subsequent escape in making the adverse credibility
determination is misplaced as the IJ, in fact, found that
Lin’s testimony about the November 2006 events was credible.
4
Lin does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of
relief based on his allegations of persecution stemming from
the false charges.
Because Lin’s claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief based on his practice of
Christianity all rely on the same factual predicate, the
agency’s adverse credibility determination forecloses all
relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d Cir.
2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5