Guoli Lin v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 4 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUOLI LIN, No. 20-73827
Petitioner, BIA A205-181-646
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2022 **
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District
Judge.
Guoli Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing Lin’s appeal of an order
*
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).
**
The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
1
by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Lin challenges the
agency’s adverse credibility finding and the determination that he failed to
establish a probability of torture if removed to China. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.
“[A]n adverse credibility determination may be supported by omissions that
are not ‘details,’ but new allegations that tell a much different—and more
compelling—story of persecution than the initial application.” Silva-Pereira v.
Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and alteration
omitted). Under the totality of the circumstances, see Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th
1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), this record supports the IJ’s finding that Lin
embellished his account of alleged past persecution with the addition of testimony
on direct examination about being beaten with a baton and bleeding from his
cheek. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding
adverse credibility determination based on omissions involving the applicant
himself and where the omitted facts tended to embellish the applicant’s claim); see
also Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971–74 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that
omissions are usually more significant if they are developed during direct
examination, which gives the applicant and his attorney the opportunity to control
the testimony). Thus, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility
2
determination. See Zamanov, 649 F.3d at 973–74. In the absence of other
evidence, Lin did not meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT protection. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010) (where petitioner is found not credible, the country
condition reports and other evidence in the record must establish an individualized
likelihood of torture).
PETITION DENIED.
3