NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BANGSHUN LIN,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 72459 20

- 70871

Agency No. A215

- 821

- 922

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 8, 2022 * * Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions, Bangshun Lin , a native and citizen of the

People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s ’

(“BIA”) summary dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order

denying his claims for relief from removal
, and denial of his motion to reopen

* 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). 

# FILED

JUL 12 202 2

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

those proceeding s . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petitions.

1. T he BIA summarily dismissed Lin’s appeal of the IJ’s order for failing to

comply with the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)

. Specifically,

t he BIA held that Lin failed to provide the grounds for his appeal and failed to file

a written brief despit e indicating on his notice of appeal that he would do so. On

appeal to this court, Lin acknowledges the BIA’s summary dismissal but does not

contest th e grounds on which the BIA relied to dismiss his case. Lin has thus

forfeited any challenge to the summary dismissal’s grounds by failing to

specifically and distinctly argue it in his opening brief. See Lopez

- Vasquez v.

Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

– 80 (9th Cir. 2013)

.

2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen

because Lin did not establish prejudice resulting from his counsel’s failure to file a

brief on administrative appeal

. See Rojas

- Garcia v. Ashcroft , 339 F.3d 814, 82 4

–

2 6 (9th Cir. 2003 ). Lin contends that he suffered prejudice because he was
deprived of the opportunity to challenge th e IJ’s adverse credibility finding

. Lin
, however, does not raise “arguments [that] might hav e been successful on appeal to

the BIA.” Id. at 826

. Specifically, Lin argues that the IJ improperly relied on statements from his

credible fear interview and that his documentary evidence bolster ed his testimony.3

But because t he interview had sufficient indicia of reliability
, the IJ could properly

rely on it. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding

that there we re sufficient indicia of reliability where “the interviews were

conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked,

and transcribed . . . with the aid of an interpreter”)

. And Lin ’s allegations of

mistranslation and lack of comprehension during the interview are speculative in

the absence of a ny supporting evidenc e

. 1 T he record also does not compel a

finding that Lin’s documentary evidence rehabilitate d his incredible testimony in

light of the wide

- ranging inconsistencies and omissions the IJ identified
, and Lin

does not contend that the documentary evidence alone is sufficient to support his

claims in the absence of credible testimony. Cf. Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785,

791

– 92 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1 That Lin’s counsel disconnected during the telephonic interview does not render the transcript unreliable.