Filed: Feb. 10, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-472-ag Lin v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A098 561 750 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 N
Summary: 10-472-ag Lin v. Holder BIA Mulligan, IJ A098 561 750 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 NO..
More
10-472-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A098 561 750
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
4 New York, on the 10th day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ZUOLU LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-472-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22 FOR PETITIONER: Jed S. Wasserman, New York, New
23 York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Pegah
28 Vakili, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, 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 Zuolu Lin, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 14,
7 2010, order of the BIA, affirming the March 25, 2008,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Thomas J. Mulligan,
9 which denied his application for asylum, withholding of
10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Zuolu Lin, No. A098 561 750 (B.I.A. Jan. 14,
12 2010), aff’g No. A098 561 750 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 25,
13 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
14 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision, as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
17 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d
20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
22 credibility determination. 1 As the IJ found: (1) although
Because Lin filed his asylum application before May
1
11, 2005, the amendments made to the Immigration and
Nationality Act by the REAL ID Act of 2005 do not apply
to his asylum application. See Pub. L. No. 109-13,
2
1 Lin stated in his 2007 affidavit that village cadres beat
2 him, he omitted that detail from his original and revised
3 asylum applications; (2) although Lin testified that he was
4 hit with a baton and detained for over two hours, he omitted
5 those details from his original and revised asylum
6 applications and from his 2007 affidavit; and (3) the
7 affidavit from Lin’s wife omitted any details relating to
8 his alleged beating, detention, or medical treatment.
9 Although minor and isolated discrepancies may be
10 insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding, see
11 Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285-86 (2d Cir. 2000), the
12 multiple discrepancies here were not isolated, and related
13 to events at the heart of Lin’s claim—that he suffered past
14 persecution and had a well-founded fear of persecution based
15 on his resistance to the family planning policy.
16 Furthermore, as the record supports the IJ’s findings
17 that Lin provided conflicting statements, the IJ was not
18 required to credit Lin’s explanation that the details of his
19 beating and detention merely supplemented, rather than
20 contradicted, his asylum application. See Majidi v.
21 Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that
22 the agency need not credit an applicant’s explanations for
23 inconsistent testimony unless those explanations would
§ 101(h)(2), 119 Stat. 231, 305 (2005).
3
1 compel a reasonable fact-finder to do so); see also Zhou Yun
2 Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding
3 that the Court generally will not disturb adverse
4 credibility determinations that are based on “specific
5 examples in the record of inconsistent statements . . .
6 about matters material to [an applicant’s] claim of
7 persecution, or on contradictory evidence or inherently
8 improbable testimony regarding such matters” (internal
9 quotation marks omitted)), overruled in part on other
10 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice,
494 F.3d
11 296, 305 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc). Accordingly, the IJ
12 reasonably relied on the cumulative effect of the
13 inconsistencies among Lin’s testimony, asylum applications,
14 and background materials to render an adverse credibility
15 determination. See Tu Lin v. Gonzales,
446 F.3d 395, 402
16 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasizing that “even where an IJ relies on
17 discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken separately, concern
18 matters collateral or ancillary to the claim, the cumulative
19 effect may nevertheless be deemed consequential by the fact-
20 finder”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)) ;
21 see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 166-67 n.3
22 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that inconsistencies and omissions
23 are “functionally equivalent”).
24 Moreover, because the IJ did not find Lin’s testimony
25 credible, the BIA properly noted the absence of documentary
4
1 evidence which could have corroborated his claim that he
2 suffered harm because he resisted the family planning
3 policy. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d
4 315, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). As the BIA noted, Lin’s wife’s
5 affidavit, his doctor’s letters, and his medical records did
6 not provide any details relating to his alleged abuse or
7 detention, one of the doctor’s letters was inconsistent with
8 Lin’s testimony, and the medical records failed to give
9 sufficient detail indicating that Lin was harmed based on
10 his “other resistance” to the family planning policy.
11 Because the record supports the IJ’s adverse credibility
12 determination, the BIA did not err in relying on Lin’s
13 failure to corroborate his “other resistance” claim to
14 support the adverse credibility determination. See
id.
15 Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s
16 adverse credibility determination, see Zhou Yun Zhang,
386
17 F.3d at 74, and the only evidence of a threat to Lin’s life
18 or freedom depended upon his credibility, the adverse
19 credibility determination in this case necessarily precludes
20 success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal,
21 and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d
22 Cir. 2006).
23 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
24 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
25 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
6
