Ling Lin v. Holder , 526 F. App'x 54 ( 2013 )

11-2672-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A088 350 749
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 6th day of June, two thousand thirteen.
PRESENT:
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
REENA RAGGI,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
LING LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 11-2672-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Jennifer P. Williams,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Lauren E.
Fascett, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Ling Lin, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a June 6, 2011
order of the BIA that affirmed the March 20, 2009 decision
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying her application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ling Lin, No.
A088 350 749 (B.I.A. June 6, 2011), aff’g No. A088 350 749
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 20, 2009). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision. See Xue
Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
The agency relied on an inconsistency and similarities
between Lin’s statement and statements provided by her
2
mother and boyfriend to find her not credible. Petitioner
challenges both bases for the determination. Assuming
without deciding that the IJ’s inconsistency finding was
flawed, we nonetheless uphold the agency’s determination.
Remand is not appropriate when “there is no realistic
possibility that, absent the error[], the IJ or BIA would
have reached a different conclusion” regarding Lin’s
credibility, Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d
391, 401 (2d Cir. 2005). The striking similarities between
the statement Lin submitted in support of her asylum
application and statements from Lin’s mother and boyfriend
provide ample support for the agency’s adverse credibility
finding.
The documents closely resemble each other in length,
structure, content, and phrasing. Among other parallelisms,
each of the documents contains five paragraphs, and the text
of each paragraph contains similar information: for example,
the second paragraph of each letter discusses Lin’s
relationship with her boyfriend and when she became
pregnant; the third paragraph discusses her discovery of the
pregnancy and the circumstances of the ensuing abortion; and
the fourth paragraph discusses the 8,000 renminbi (“RMB”)
3
fine imposed on her and an alleged threat of arrest as a
consequence of nonpayment of the fine. Moreover, the texts
resemble each other as well. For example, Lin’s statement,
“One week after the abortion, the family planning officials
told me to pay RMB 8,000 fine,” approximates Lin’s
boyfriend’s statement, “One week after the abortion, the
family planning officials asked her to pay RMB 8000 of
fine.” And Lin’s statement, “My mother and I kept begging
them to let go of me and the innocent fetus in my abdomen,”
echoes Lin’s mother’s statement, “We were very scared and
begged them to let go of my daughter and the baby in her
abdomen.”
Despite Lin’s repeated assertions that, although she
asked her mother and boyfriend to write letters on her
behalf, she did not dictate the contents of their
statements, the agency reasonably found implausible that the
similarities between the documents were merely coincidental,
particularly, as the IJ noted, in light of the “different
educational background of the authors, who resided at
different residences.” As we have stated, “striking
similarities between affidavits are an indication that the
statements are ‘canned,’” and as such, undermine an
4
applicant’s credibility. Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Surinder
Singh v. BIA, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d Cir. 2006). Thus, in
making its credibility determination, the agency reasonably
relied on the remarkable similarities between the documents
Lin provided. See Mei Chai Ye, 489 F.3d at 526 (holding
that once an IJ has noted remarkable similarities between
affidavits and complied with procedural safeguards, it is
reasonable to conclude that an applicant’s general
credibility is undermined).
The agency’s adverse credibility determination was thus
supported by substantial evidence. See Xiu Xia Lin v.
Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008); see also 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We therefore hold that the
agency did not err in denying asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5