16-766
Lin v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A205 628 411
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 20th day of April, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 CHANGWEN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-766
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Aminat Sabak, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; John S.
27 Hogan, Assistant Director; Matthew
28 A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Changwen Lin, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 17, 2016,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2015 decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against
10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Changwen Lin, No. A205 628 411 (B.I.A.
11 Feb. 17, 2016), aff’g No. A205 628 411 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July
12 8, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the
20 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier
21 of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor,
22 candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the inherent
2
1 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the consistency
2 between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . .
3 , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the
4 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record
5 . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy,
6 or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”
7 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at
8 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
9 determination that Lin was not credible as to his claim that
10 Chinese officials detained and beat him after a raid on his
11 unregistered church in China, and that he fears persecution on
12 account of his continued religious practice.
13 The agency reasonably relied on numerous inconsistencies
14 in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin,
15 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. A letter from Lin’s church in China
16 omitted any mention that police had arrested Lin and more than
17 twenty other church members, and the letterhead and official
18 stamp on that letter bore the name, Jesus True Church, which
19 contradicted Lin’s testimony that the church was called Real
20 Jesus Christ Church but did not have an official name.
21 Furthermore, Lin’s testimony was internally inconsistent
22 regarding how often police have looked for him at his mother’s
3
1 house in China, and his mother’s letter failed to mention that
2 police had visited her between thirty and forty times (as would
3 have been the case according to Lin’s testimony). Lin did not
4 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies.
5 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
6 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for
7 his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
8 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
9 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks and
10 citations omitted)).
11 The agency also reasonably found Lin’s testimony vague and
12 implausible, and his evidence inconsistent regarding his
13 brother’s alleged religious persecution. See 8 U.S.C.
14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Lin testified that he and his twin
15 brother live together and attend the same church in the United
16 States and that his brother has applied for asylum based on
17 religious persecution. Yet, Lin did not know where his brother
18 works, he did not know what happened to his brother in China,
19 and he claimed, after vague and evasive answers, that he and
20 his brother had never even discussed what had happened in China
21 or why his brother had come to the United States. See Wensheng
22 Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66-67 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing
4
1 that adverse credibility determination may be based on inherent
2 implausibility in applicant’s story); Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft,
3 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives very
4 spare testimony . . . the IJ . . . may fairly wonder whether
5 the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled in part on other
6 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296,
7 305 (2d Cir. 2007). Additionally, Lin’s application failed to
8 mention that his brother had suffered similar persecution
9 despite a direct question asking him to discuss any harm
10 suffered by family members. See 8 U.S.C.
11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3.
12 Similarly, Lin’s mother and grandmother also failed to mention
13 his brother’s persecution in their letters. See Xiu Xia Lin,
14 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3.
15 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency reasonably
16 relied further on his failure to provide sufficient
17 corroboration. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273
18 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ reasonably concluded that the letters
19 from Lin’s relatives, friends, and church in China were entitled
20 to little weight because the authors were not available for
21 cross-examination and, as discussed above, they omitted
22 significant aspects of his claim. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
5
1 at 165-66 & n.3; Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013).
2 Moreover, the IJ was not compelled to credit Lin’s explanation
3 that his twin brother could not testify because he also has an
4 asylum application pending in removal proceedings. Cf. Yan
5 Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding
6 that a reasonable fact finder is not compelled to conclude that
7 a spouse is unavailable to testify based on fear of arrest due
8 to unlawful status).
9 Given Lin’s inconsistent statements and evidence,
10 implausible and evasive testimony, and lack of corroboration,
11 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
12 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That
13 determination is dispositive of Lin’s claims for asylum,
14 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims
15 are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
16 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
21 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
22 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
6
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7