Filed: Nov. 23, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-23-2007 Lin v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2292 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Lin v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 202. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/202 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-23-2007 Lin v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2292 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Lin v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 202. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/202 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the U..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-23-2007
Lin v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2292
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Lin v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 202.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/202
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No: 06-2292
_______________
LI LIN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
_______________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
United States Department of Justice
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A78-864-361)
Immigration Judge: Miriam K. Mills
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 8, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, AMBRO and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 23, 2007)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
Li Lin petitions for review from the final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reason that follows, we will deny the
petition for review.
I.
Lin is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China. On June 27, 2002,
Lin arrived in the United States without valid entry documents. Upon her arrival, an
officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service interviewed Lin under oath. During
that interview, Lin stated that she was seeking asylum “because of Falun Gong.” When
Lin was asked, “Do you practice Falun Gong?,” she replied, “No.” When asked why she
was requesting asylum based on Falun Gong if she did not practice it, she answered, “My
parents practice Falun Gong.”
In July 2003, Lin applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
CAT. In her application, Lin again asserted that her parents had practiced Falun Gong in
China. She also alleged that she would be arrested if deported to China “because [she]
was involved in the activities of Falun Gong.” At a hearing before the Immigration Judge
on November 27, 2004, Lin testified that she feared returning to China because she had
practiced Falun Gong in China on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
On November 27, 2004, the Immigration Judge denied Lin’s application, finding
that Lin was not credible and thus had failed to meet her burden to demonstrate a well-
2
founded fear of persecution. Lin appealed and the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirmed.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
II.
We review factual findings, including credibility determinations, for substantial
evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1254(b)(4)(B); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir.
2003). On appeal, Lin argues that the record does not support the Immigration Judge’s
finding that Lin was not credible. We disagree. There is substantial evidence in the
record to support the finding that Lin lacked credibility. The record contains a major
inconsistency regarding whether Lin practiced Falun Gong in China. At Lin’s airport
interview, which the record indicates was conducted in Lin’s native language, Lin
specifically denied practicing Falun Gong. Then, at the hearing before the Immigration
Judge, Lin testified that she had practiced Falun Gong in China on a weekly or bi-weekly
basis. This inconsistency goes to the heart of Lin’s claim and is sufficient to support the
Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination.
III.
For the reason stated above, we deny the petition for review.
3