Jinlin Ling v. Loretta E. Lynch , 645 F. App'x 560 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 24 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JINLIN LING,                                       No. 13-74334
    Petitioner,                          Agency No. A089-720-940
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 15, 2016**
    Before:        GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Jinlin Ling, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
    judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
    and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo questions of law,
    including claims of due process violations, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1014
    ,
    1017 (9th Cir. 2008), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
    findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
    created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1039-40 (9th Cir.
    2010). We deny the petition for review.
    We reject Ling’s contentions that the IJ’s violated his due process rights
    during his proceedings. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 
    457 F.3d 915
    , 921-22 (9th
    Cir. 2006); Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
    establish a due process claim).
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
    based on the Ling’s inconsistent accounts as to the location of his business and
    residence in China, and based on his omission from his statement of significant
    incidents of harm he experienced in detention. See Shrestha, 
    590 F.3d at 1048
    (adverse credibility determination supported under “the totality of circumstances”).
    The record does not support Ling’s contention that he omitted incidents due to
    embarrassment. See Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 
    353 F.3d 1077
    , 1079 (9th Cir.
    2003) (claim was based solely on counsel’s argument, which “does not constitute
    evidence”). Further, Ling’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. See
    Lata, 
    204 F.3d at 1245
    . We reject Ling’s contentions that his documentary
    2                                  13-74334
    evidence overcomes his lack of credibility, see Garcia v. Holder, 
    749 F.3d 785
    ,
    791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not rehabilitate testimony, or independently
    support petitioner’s claim), and his contention that the BIA disregarded evidence.
    Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Ling’s asylum and withholding of
    removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
    Finally, Ling’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
    testimony found not credible, and Ling does not point to any other evidence in the
    record that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
    returned to China. See Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 922-23 (although reports
    confirmed torture occurred in petitioner’s country, record did not compel the
    finding that petitioner would be tortured).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3                                  13-74334
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-74334

Citation Numbers: 645 F. App'x 560

Judges: Goodwin, Leavy, Christen

Filed Date: 3/24/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024