Lei Lin v. Lynch

12-745
Lin v. Lynch
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A077 743 015
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 8th day of July, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LEI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-745
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,*
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Brown, New York, New York.
25
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Respondent.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Thomas B.
3 Fatouros, Senior Litigation
4 Counsel; Janette L. Allen, Trial
5 Attorney, Office of Immigration
6 Litigation, U.S. Department of
7 Justice, Washington, D.C.
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
11 DENIED.
12 Petitioner Lei Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
13 Republic of China, seeks review of a February 14, 2012 decision
14 of the BIA affirming an April 13, 2010 decision of Immigration
15 Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert denying Lin’s application for
16 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
17 Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Lei Lin, No. A077 743 015
18 (B.I.A. Feb. 14, 2012), aff’g No. A077 743 015 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C.
19 Apr. 13, 2010). Under the circumstances of this case, we review
20 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v.
21 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), applying well
22 established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
23 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). In
2
1 doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and
2 procedural history of this case.
3 For applications like Lin’s that were filed before
4 enactment of the 2005 REAL ID Act, an adverse credibility
5 determination must be based on “specific, cogent reasons” that
6 “bear a legitimate nexus” to the finding, and any discrepancy
7 must be “substantial” when measured against the record as a
8 whole. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 307 (2d Cir.
9 2003). Inconsistencies need not be fatal if they are “minor
10 and isolated,” and the testimony is otherwise generally
11 consistent, rational, and believable. See Diallo v. INS, 232
12 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 2000).
13 Lin argues that (1) he adduced new evidence sufficient to
14 rehabilitate his prior incredible testimony pertaining to his
15 family planning claim, and (2) the agency improperly found his
16 testimony relating to Falun Gong not credible on the basis of
17 the prior adverse credibility determination. We are not
18 persuaded.
19 The agency was entitled to discount Lin’s new evidence
20 because it consisted of unsworn letters from interested parties
21 and unsigned, unauthenticated photocopies of purportedly
3
1 official documents. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
2 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that weight accorded
3 to evidence lies largely within discretion of agency).
4 Moreover, the prior adverse credibility determination was based
5 on a finding that Lin had submitted falsified documents to the
6 IJ. See Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143, 146-47 (2d
7 Cir. 2007).
8 As to Lin’s alleged practice of Falun Gong, the agency was
9 justified in relying on the prior adverse credibility
10 determination to find Lin’s testimony and documentary evidence
11 incredible. See Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170, 171 (2d
12 Cir. 2007) (“[B]ecause the submission of [false ancillary]
13 evidence raises the question of the alien’s overall
14 credibility, even ancillary evidence sometimes supports falsus
15 in uno.”); accord Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d at 146-47.
16 Accordingly, the agency did not err in discounting Lin’s scant
17 documentary evidence and in disbelieving the evidence that
18 depended upon Lin’s credibility. See Qin Wen Zheng v.
19 Gonazles, 500 F.3d at 146-47; Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d at
20 170.
4
1 Because these findings are dispositive of Lin’s petition,
2 we need not review the agency’s alternative grounds for denying
3 Lin relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition
6 is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
7 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
8 FOR THE COURT:
9 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5