Tiantian Lin v. Lynch

15-2434
Lin v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A205 427 855
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 15th day of November, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 TIANTIAN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-2434
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Anthony
27 W. Norwood, Senior Litigation
28 Counsel; Corey L. Farrell, Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Tiantian Lin, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 16, 2015
7 decision of the BIA affirming a December 10, 2013 decision of
8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tiantian Lin, No. A205 427 855
11 (B.I.A. July 16, 2015), aff’g No. A205 427 855 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C.
12 Dec. 10, 2013).
13 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s
14 decision as the final agency determination Shunfu Li v. Mukasey,
15 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008), applying well established
16 standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin
17 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (reviewing
18 adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence).
19 In doing so, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history of the case.
2
1 For applications such as Lin’s, governed by the REAL ID Act
2 of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the
3 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum
4 applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the
5 plausibility of his account, and inconsistencies in his
6 statements and other record evidence “without regard to
7 whether” the inconsistencies go “to the heart of the applicant’s
8 claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
9 at 163-64. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination
10 unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that
11 no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse
12 credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Further,
13 “[a] petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation
14 for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must
15 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled
16 to credit his testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80
17 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations
18 omitted). By these standards, the agency’s adverse
19 credibility determination is supported by substantial
20 evidence.
3
1 The IJ reasonably relied on multiple inconsistencies
2 between Lin’s testimony and asylum application. See 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166 n.3.
4 Among other things, Lin testified that while detained in China
5 for attending an underground Christian church, (1) police beat
6 her, (2) police threw a binder at her head and hurt her ear,
7 and (3) her father paid a substantial bribe for her release.
8 Her application, however, made no mention of these incidents.
9 In addition, Lin testified, in direct contradiction of her
10 application, that police had raided her church on multiple prior
11 occasions. Lin explained these discrepancies by testifying
12 that she did not write well, did not think she needed to include
13 the omitted facts in her application, or had not listened
14 carefully to questions asked at the hearing. The IJ was not
15 compelled to accept these explanations. See Majidi, 430 F.3d
16 at 80-81. Accordingly, because the discrepancies were
17 material to the sole incident of persecution in Lin’s claim,
18 see Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 295
19 (2d Cir. 2006), the IJ was entitled to rely on them in finding
20 Lin not credible, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia
21 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166 n.3, 167.
4
1 Nor did the IJ err in relying on multiple inconsistencies
2 between Lin’s testimony and that of her witness, Huizhen Liang,
3 on such facts as whether Liang remained a member of the church
4 choir, had been at the service the previous Sunday, or had
5 attended Lin’s baptism. The IJ was not required to accept
6 Liang’s explanations for the inconsistencies, Majidi, 430 F.3d
7 at 80-81, and reasonably concluded that her testimony was not
8 credible.
9 Finally, the IJ reasonably concluded that Lin failed to
10 rehabilitate her credibility with sufficient corroborating
11 evidence. Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.
12 2007). Lin submitted no letters or documents corroborating her
13 church attendance or arrest in China, and the documents she did
14 submit—letters from Liang and the pastor of her church in the
15 United States, as well as a photograph of her parents
16 purportedly in a church in China—did not resolve the
17 inconsistencies in her testimony. The pastor was unavailable
18 for cross-examination, and, as noted, Liang’s testimony
19 repeatedly contradicted Lin’s. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
20 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Matter of
21 H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010), rev’d on
5
1 other grounds by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.
2 2012).
3 On this record, we identify no basis to disturb the IJ’s
4 adverse credibility determination, see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d
5 at 165–66, which is dispositive of Lin’s claims for asylum,
6 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, see Paul v. Gonzales,
7 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
15 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6