Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03564/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03564-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John D. Ashcroft
Respondent
Tian Shui Lin
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Lin does not appeal from the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure and relief

under the Convention Against Torture.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3564

___________

Tian Shui Lin, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: September 23, 2004

Filed: October 8, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tian Shui Lin, a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial

of asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and

voluntary departure.1

 On appeal, Lin challenges the IJ’s and the BIA’s adverse

credibility determination and argues that his counsel provided ineffective assistance.

Appellate Case: 03-3564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819969 
-2-

After careful review of the record, we conclude the BIA’s decision on Lin’s

asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See

Feleke v. INS, 118 F.3d 594, 597-98 (8th Cir. 1997). Specifically, the BIA and the

IJ discredited Lin’s testimony because Lin told different stories relating to central

aspects of his asylum claim, his documentary evidence contained inconsistencies, and

a forensic report concluded that some of his documentation had been altered.

Because it was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief, we defer to the

credibility finding. See Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per

curiam) (deference standard); Akinwande v. Ashcroft, No. 03-1258, 2004 WL

1837728, at *4 (1st Cir. Aug. 17, 2004) (alien’s inconsistent testimony was enough

to raise doubts about alien’s credibility; alien’s submission of altered documents cast

further doubt on credibility); Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

(upholding adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies related to key elements

of asylum claim); Daiga v. INS, 183 F.3d 797, 798 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)

(upholding adverse credibility finding where alien gave inconsistent testimony and

submitted questionable documents). Lin’s request for withholding of removal thus

fails as well. See Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir. 1999)

(withholding-of-removal standard is more difficult to meet than asylum standard).

Finally, we have yet to recognize a due process claim in a deportation

proceeding based on ineffective assistance, see Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d

805, 808 n.1 (8th Cir. 2003), and even if such a claim were cognizable in this circuit,

it is clear from the record that counsel’s alleged deficient performance did not affect

the outcome of the proceeding.

Accordingly, we deny Lin’s petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2004 Entry ID: 1819969