Filed: Sep. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-1172 Lin v. Lynch BIA Videla, IJ A087 786 614 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 NOTATI
Summary: 14-1172 Lin v. Lynch BIA Videla, IJ A087 786 614 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 NOTATIO..
More
14-1172
Lin v. Lynch
BIA
Videla, IJ
A087 786 614
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 1st day of September, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SEN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-1172
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,1
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Dehai Zhang, Flushing, New York.
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General
Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Eric
H. Holder, Jr.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Emily Anne
3 Radford, Assistant Director; C.
4 Frederick Sheffield, Trial
5 Attorney, Office of Immigration
6 Litigation, U.S. Department of
7 Justice, Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
12 DENIED.
13 Petitioner Sen Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
14 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 26, 2014, decision
15 of the BIA affirming a May 31, 2012, decision of an Immigration
16 Judge (“IJ”), denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding
17 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
18 (“CAT”). In re Sen Lin, No. A087 786 614 (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2014),
19 aff’g No. A087 786 614 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 31, 2012). We
20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
21 procedural history in this case.
22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
23 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the bases for
24 denying relief that were not considered by the BIA (untimely
2
1 asylum application and burden findings). Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
2 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
3 applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66
5 (2d Cir. 2008). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality
6 of the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on
7 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other
8 record evidence “without regard to whether” they go “to the
9 heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64.
11 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
12 Lin was not credible.
13 The agency reasonably relied in part on Lin’s inconsistent
14 and admittedly false statements related to whether he hit a
15 family planning official with a shovel during his arrest in
16 China. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 166-67; see also Siewe v.
17 Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (providing that an
18 asylum applicant’s presentation of “a single false document or
19 a single instance of false testimony may (if attributable to
20 the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s
3
1 uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence . . . [and] may also
2 influence the IJ’s assessment of . . . the credibility of the
3 petitioner.”). In addition, Lin’s testimony that he
4 threatened family planning officials with a metal shovel was
5 inconsistent with his mother’s statement that Lin used a knife.
6 Both the inconsistency and Lin’s admission that his mother
7 exaggerated the facts in her letter further undermined his
8 credibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also
9 Siewe, 480 F.3d at 170. Finally, the agency reasonably relied
10 on Lin’s inconsistent testimony regarding when he decided to
11 leave China for the United States. See Xiu Xia Lin,
534 F.3d
12 at 166-67.
13 Given Lin’s false and inconsistent statements, the
14 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
15 substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67;
16
Siewe, 480 F.3d at 170. That finding is dispositive of Lin’s
17 claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See
18 Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
4
1 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
2 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
3 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
4 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
5 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
6 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
