NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YAN BING LIN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72132 

Agency No. A209-761-921 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Yan Bing Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

* 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

FEB 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-72132 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039‐40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on misrepresentations on his visa applications and implausible testimony 

regarding protection in Mexico. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding 

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 

954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa application supported adverse 

credibility determination); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th Cir. 2021) 

(implausible explanations supported adverse credibility determination). Lin’s 

explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that 

Lin’s documentary evidence did not independently establish eligibility for relief. 

See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (absent 

credible testimony, petitioner failed to establish eligibility for relief). Thus, in the 

absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding of 

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding 

standard). 
3 20-72132 

We do not address Lin’s contentions as to meriting a favorable exercise of 

discretion with respect to his asylum claim because the BIA did not deny relief on 

this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon 

by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Lin’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not 

credible, and Lin does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels 

the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.