15-1340
Lin v. Sessions
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A200 594 144
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
18th day of April, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT:
REENA RAGGI,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
QING LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 15-1340
NAC
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.*
_____________________________________
* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2),
Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III is automatically
substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as
Respondent.
FOR PETITIONER: Mona Liza Fabular Lao, Fabular, Li
& Associates, P.C., New York,
New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General; Greg D. Mack, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Hillel R.
Smith, 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.
Petitioner Qing Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks
review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Qing Lin, No. A200
594 144 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2015), aff’g No. A200 594 144 (Immig.
Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 26, 2013).
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision
of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales,
417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), applying well established
standards of review, see Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162,
165–66 (2d Cir. 2008). In so doing, we assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
of this case.
2
For asylum applications like Lin’s, the agency, upon
“[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances,” may base a
credibility finding on the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or
responsiveness,” the plausibility of her account, and
inconsistencies in her statements and other record evidence
“without regard to whether” those inconsistencies go “to the
heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 163–
64. “We defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility determination
unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could
make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v.
Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 167.
Here, the agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies among
Lin’s testimony, the testimony of her alleged uncle, and a letter
from her alleged cousin regarding whether they were related.
See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 166–67. Specifically,
Lin referred to the cousin as either sponsor or cousin, but the
cousin’s affidavit said Lin was his nephew, while the uncle,
who was called as a witness to corroborate Lin’s church
attendance, claimed not to know the cousin (who allegedly was
his son) and denied that he and Lin were related. These
inconsistencies alone are sufficient support for the adverse
3
credibility determination because they indicate that Lin
fabricated her claim of continuing church attendance. See Siewe
v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“So a single false
document or a single instance of false testimony may (if
attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s
uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”). When
confronted with these discrepancies, Lin gave a series of
inconsistent responses that did fully explain the contradicting
evidence. The IJ was not required to credit Lin’s various
shifting justifications. 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.” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The adverse credibility determination is further supported
by an inconsistency between Lin’s testimony and documentary
evidence regarding her practice of Christianity in China. She
confirmed that she first attended church in China on June 21,
2009, but submitted a letter from the church that she accepted
Jesus Christ as her savior on June 1, 2009. The agency was not
4
required to accept Lin’s explanation that the letter contained
an error. See id.
Given the multiple inconsistencies within and among the
testimony and documentary evidence, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d at 165–66. That finding is
dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate.
See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion for
a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5