Li Min Lin v. Garland ( 2023 )

20-3683
Li Min Lin v. Garland
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A205 894 760
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.
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 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 LI MIN LIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 20-3683
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, Esq., New York,
25 NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Song Park,
1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Rosanne
2 M. Perry, Trial Attorney, Office
3 of Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, DC.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Li Min Lin, a native and citizen of the
11 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a September 29,
12 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a June 20, 2018, decision
13 of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
15 Convention Against Torture (CAT). In re Li Min Lin, No. A205
16 894 760 (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 894 760
17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 20, 2018). We assume the parties’
18 familiarity with the case.
19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and
20 modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
21 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
23 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[A]dministrative findings of fact are
24 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
2
1 compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v.
2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse
3 credibility determination under substantial evidence
4 standard).
5 The IJ may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
6 circumstances, . . . base a credibility determination on . . .
7 the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,”
8 and inconsistencies in her statements or between her
9 statements and other evidence, “without regard to whether an
10 inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of
11 the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We
12 defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from
13 the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no
14 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility
15 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.
16 2008).
17 Lin asserted a claim of past persecution, alleging that
18 that she was forced to have an intrauterine device (“IUD”) in
19 1995, and an abortion and a second IUD in 1999. The agency
20 pointed to multiple inconsistencies between her application,
21 statements at her asylum interview, hearing testimony, and
3
1 documentary evidence in concluding that she had not stated a
2 credible claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
3 Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
4 determination. Lin’s statements at her asylum interview and
5 hearing were inconsistent about when she had the IUD removed
6 before coming to the United States and whether Chinese
7 authorities were aware she had had it removed. She argues
8 that the interview record is unreliable because of
9 translation problems, but she did not exhaust this
10 explanation before the BIA, and, even if she had, asylum
11 interviews are not subject to “special scrutiny” to establish
12 their reliability and the record does not reflect
13 comprehension issues. Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715,
14 723 (2d Cir. 2009).
15 Lin’s testimony contradicted itself in other places, too.
16 At one point, she testified that she and her husband had come
17 to the United States because they wanted to move to a country
18 with more reproductive freedom; elsewhere, she stated that
19 she had come to visit her son who was in the United States on
20 a student visa and learned that she might be eligible for
21 asylum only after her arrival. The IJ did not err in
4
1 concluding that this last allegation was not plausible under
2 the circumstances.
3 Lin also changed her explanation for failing to provide
4 her family planning medical record book as evidence. During
5 her asylum interview, she said that she was required to bring
6 the book to every checkup. Later, she testified that she
7 never had the book at home and only signed it during checkups
8 at the family planning office. The agency was not required
9 to credit her explanation that the process changed over time.
10 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A
11 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
12 for h[er] inconsistent statements to secure relief; [s]he
13 must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be
14 compelled to credit h[er] testimony.” (internal quotation
15 marks omitted)).
16 Finally, the IJ did not err in relying on additional
17 minor discrepancies between Lin’s statements and her
18 documentary evidence about her son’s level of education and
19 her address in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu
20 Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (“[E]ven where an IJ relies on
21 discrepancies or lacunae that, if taken separately, concern
5
1 matters collateral or ancillary to the claim, the cumulative
2 effect may nevertheless be deemed consequential by the fact-
3 finder.”).
4 The inconsistencies, taken together, provide substantial
5 evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See
6 Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020)
7 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from
8 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.”).
9 The adverse credibility determination disposes of Lin’s
10 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claims because
11 all three are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul
12 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). To the
13 extent Lin argues that the agency failed to consider her
14 country conditions evidence, the evidence confirms a one
15 child family planning policy in China in 1999 but does not
16 resolve the inconsistencies about Lin’s own experience. See
17 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008)
18 (agency need not “expressly parse or refute on the record
19 each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the
20 petitioner”).
21
6
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
7