Filed: Oct. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4941-ag Lin v. Holder BIA Rohan, IJ A094 803 537 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 NOT
Summary: 09-4941-ag Lin v. Holder BIA Rohan, IJ A094 803 537 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 NOTA..
More
09-4941-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Rohan, IJ
A094 803 537
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
4 York, on the 22nd day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YI MEI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4941-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Lee Ratner, Law Offices of Michael
24 Brown, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
27 Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation
28 Counsel; Judith R. O’Sullivan, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, Civil Division, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Yi Mei Lin, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 6,
7 2009, order of the BIA affirming the January 30, 2008,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Patricia A. Rohan,
9 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Yi Mei Lin, No. A094 803 537 (B.I.A. Nov. 6, 2009), aff’g
12 No. A094 803 537 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 30, 2008). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
20 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529
21 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
2 credibility determination. The IJ’s adverse credibility
3 finding was based, in part, on several discrepancies among
4 statements in Lin’s credible fear interview, written asylum
5 application, testimony, and corroborating evidence.
6 Specifically, Lin stated during her credible fear interview
7 that she left China solely because a man threatened to force
8 her into marriage as repayment for her family’s debt and
9 that she had no other problems in China, omitting her claims
10 later raised before the IJ that: (1) the man who threatened
11 to force her into marriage also threatened to report her to
12 the authorities for having harbored a Falun Gong fugitive;
13 and (2) she feared persecution based on her support for
14 Falun Gong. Second, Lin’s asylum application and supporting
15 letters stated that Lin was arrested and beaten in April
16 2000 because she had spoken publicly against the Chinese
17 government’s treatment of Falun Gong practitioners.
18 However, Lin contradicted these statements by initially
19 testifying that she never spoke publicly in support of Falun
20 Gong, and then by changing her testimony to state that she
21 only spoke publicly in support of Falun Gong before it was
22 outlawed in July 1999. Because the IJ was entitled to rely
23 on any discrepancy in finding Lin not credible, the IJ
3
1 properly relied on these inconsistencies. See 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 166
3 n.3. Furthermore, the IJ reasonably declined to credit
4 Lin’s explanation that she testified inconsistently as to
5 whether she spoke publicly against the Chinese government’s
6 treatment of Falun Gong practitioners because she
7 misunderstood the line of questioning. See Majidi v.
8 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasizing
9 that the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations
10 for inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would
11 compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so).
12 Accordingly, considering the totality of the
13 circumstances, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
14 was supported by substantial evidence and she did not err in
15 denying Lin’s asylum application insofar as it was based on
16 Lin’s claimed support of Falun Gong. See 8 U.S.C.
17 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Because the IJ reasonably found Lin
18 not credible as to her claim of a well-founded fear of
19 persecution for supporting Falun Gong, the adverse
20 credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes
21 success on her claims for withholding of removal and CAT
22 relief insofar as those claims were based on the same
4
1 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156
2 (2d Cir. 2006). Lin does not challenge the IJ’s additional
3 findings.
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
14
15
16
17
5
