Filed: Apr. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-1371 Lin v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 199 420 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 TH
Summary: 16-1371 Lin v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 199 420 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..
More
16-1371
Lin v. Sessions
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A205 199 420
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 3rd day of April, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 QI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-1371
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Qi Lin, pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Cindy S.
27 Ferrier, Assistant Director;
28 Tracie N. Jones, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of
31 Justice, Washington, DC.
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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Qi Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a March 30, 2016, decision
7 of the BIA, affirming a March 3, 2015, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Qi Lin, No. A205
11 199 420 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A205 199 420 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 3, 2015). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 “the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA.” Lianping Li v.
17 Lynch, 839 F.3d 144, 148 (2d Cir. 2016). We review the
18 agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial
19 evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v.
20 Mukasey,
534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 For asylum applications like Lin’s, governed by the REAL
2 ID Act, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on inconsistencies
4 in an applicant’s statements and evidence. 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64. “We
6 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from
7 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
8 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
9 ruling.” Xiu Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Substantial evidence
10 supports the adverse credibility determination.
11 The agency reasonably relied on inconsistencies,
12 reflected in the record, between Lin’s testimony and evidence
13 concerning his motivation for leaving China and his wife’s
14 residence during her third pregnancy. See 8 U.S.C.
15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Lin testified that he developed the
16 intent to leave China in November 2011 after converting to
17 Christianity and being attacked by strangers as a result.
18 But he was unable to explain why he obtained an English
19 translation of his birth certificate two months before that
20 date. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005).
21 We decline to consider Lin’s unexhausted explanation in his
3
1 brief—that he intended to leave China long before November
2 2011—which, in any case, is inconsistent with his testimony
3 that he did not think about leaving until November 2011. See
4 Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122-23 (2d
5 Cir. 2006). In addition, Lin’s application reflecting that
6 his wife resided “at her relative’s home outside of [their]
7 town” during her third pregnancy, conflicted with Lin’s
8 testimony that she remained in their hometown. The agency
9 was not required to credit Lin’s explanation that his wife
10 first hid in their hometown and then went to stay with
11 relatives because it conflicted with his initial testimony
12 and was not a fact he would likely forget. See Majidi,
430
13 F.3d at 80.
14 Nor do we discern error in the agency’s decision to give
15 limited weight to Lin’s corroborating evidence. See Y.C. v.
16 Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to
17 agency’s decision to give diminished weight to letter from
18 applicant’s spouse in China). Lin’s letters from China were
19 authored by interested witnesses not subject to cross
20 examination; and Lin was unfamiliar with documentation of his
21 religious activities in the United States.
Id.
4
1 Given the inconsistencies and the lack of reliable
2 corroboration, it cannot be said “that no reasonable fact-
3 finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu
4 Xia
Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse credibility ruling
5 is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
6 relief because all three forms of relief are based on the
7 same factual predicates. Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148,
8 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
11 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
12 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
13 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
14 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
15 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
16 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
