Yan Bing Lin v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN BING LIN, No. 20-72132
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-761-921
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Yan Bing Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on misrepresentations on his visa applications and implausible testimony
regarding protection in Mexico. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th
954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa application supported adverse
credibility determination); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th Cir. 2021)
(implausible explanations supported adverse credibility determination). Lin’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that
Lin’s documentary evidence did not independently establish eligibility for relief.
See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (absent
credible testimony, petitioner failed to establish eligibility for relief). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding
standard).
2 20-72132
We do not address Lin’s contentions as to meriting a favorable exercise of
discretion with respect to his asylum claim because the BIA did not deny relief on
this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon
by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lin’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not
credible, and Lin does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels
the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-72132