Lin v. Garland ( 2021 )

19-3630
Lin v. Garland
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A206 529 429
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 12th day of November, two thousand twenty-
5 one.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 HAIYAN LIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-3630
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Joan Xie, Esq., New York, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
27 Attorney General; Mary Jane
1 Candaux, Assistant Director; Remi
2 Da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 United States Department of
5 Justice, Washington, DC.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Haiyan Lin, a native and citizen of the
12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 25,
13 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a March 22, 2018, decision
14 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for
15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Haiyan Lin, No.
17 A206 529 429 (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2019), aff’g No. A206 529 429
18 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2018). We assume the parties’
19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
20 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s
21 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s demeanor
22 finding that the BIA declined to affirm. See Xue Hong Yang
23 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
24 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d
21 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018).
2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all
3 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility
4 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s
5 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , [and] the
6 internal consistency of each such statement . . . without
7 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood
8 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other
9 relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer
10 . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the
11 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable
12 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.”
13 Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008);
14 accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence
15 supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not credible
16 as to his claim that police in China detained and beat him
17 for practicing Falun Gong and that he fears future persecution
18 on that ground.
19 The IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s inconsistent evidence
20 regarding when he last travelled to China, how long he was
21 detained, why he did not submit evidence of the medical
22 treatment he received after his release, and whether he
3
1 organized a Falun Gong promotional event or was merely
2 photographed at it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see
3 also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)
4 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from
5 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.
6 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more
7 forcefully.”). The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s
8 inability to describe the five movements of Falun Gong despite
9 his claim to have practiced for more than six years. See
10 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing
11 that there may be “instances in which the nature of an
12 individual applicant’s account would render his lack of a
13 certain degree of doctrinal knowledge suspect and could
14 therefore provide substantial evidence in support of an
15 adverse credibility finding”).
16 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency
17 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his
18 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. See Biao
19 Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An
20 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may
21 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in
22 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony
4
1 that has already been called into question.”). We find no
2 error in the agency’s decision declining to credit unsworn
3 letters from Lin’s father and friend in China. See Y.C. v.
4 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer
5 to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an
6 applicant’s documentary evidence.”); see also Mei Chai Ye v.
7 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007)
8 (“[T]his court has . . . firmly embraced the commonsensical
9 notion that striking similarities between affidavits are an
10 indication that the statements are ‘canned.’”). The IJ also
11 reasonably noted that Lin failed to submit evidence from his
12 uncle who purportedly paid the fine to secure his release
13 from detention, the hospital where he sought treatment, or
14 his fellow Falun Gong practitioners in the United States.
15 Given the inconsistencies, Lin’s lack of knowledge of
16 Falun Gong, and absence of reliable corroboration, the
17 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by
18 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
19 That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of
20 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based
21 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
22 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
3 stays VACATED.
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6 Clerk of Court
6