16-766 Lin v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A205 628 411 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **20 th**  **day of April, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **CHANGWEN LIN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-766** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Aminat Sabak, New York, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 25 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 26 Hogan, Assistant Director; Matthew 27 A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office 28 of Immigration Litigation, United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, D.C. 312 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Changwen Lin, a native and citizen of the 5 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 17, 2016, 6 decision of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2015 decision of an 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, 8 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 9 Torture (“CAT”). In re Changwen Lin, No. A205 628 411 (B.I.A. 10 Feb. 17, 2016), aff’g No. A205 628 411 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 11 8, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 14 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 15 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 16 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 17 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 18 Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the 19 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier 20 of fact may base a cred ibility determination on the demeanor, 21 candor, or responsiveness of the applic ant . . . , the inherent 223 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the consistency 1 between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . 2 , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 3 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 4 . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, 5 or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 6 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 7 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 8 determination that Lin was not credible as to his claim that 9 Chinese officials detained and beat him after a raid on his 10 unregistered church in China, and that he fears persecution on 11 account of his continued religious practice. 12 The agency reasonably relied on numerous inconsistencies 13 in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 14 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. A letter from Lin’s church in China 15 omitted any mention that police had arrested Lin and more than 16 twenty other church members, and the letterhead and official 17 stamp on that letter bore the name, Jesus True Church, which 18 contradicted Lin’s testimony that the church was called Real 19 Jesus Christ Church but did not have an official name. 20 Furthermore, Lin’s testimony was internally inconsistent 21 regarding how often police have looked for him at his mother’s 224 house in China, and his mother’s letter failed to mention that 1 police had visited her between thirty and forty times (as would 2 have been the case according to Lin’s testimony). Lin did not 3 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. 4 See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 5 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for 6 his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 7 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled 8 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks and 9 citations omitted)). 10 The agency also reasonably found Lin’s testimony vague and 11 implausible, and his evidence inconsistent regarding his 12 brother’s alleged religious persecution. See 8 U.S.C. 13 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Lin testified that he and his twin 14 brother live together and attend the same church in the United 15 States and that his brother has applied for asylum based on 16 religious persecution. Yet, Lin did not know where his brother 17 works, he did not know what happened to his brother in China, 18 and he claimed, after vague and evasive answers, that he and 19 his brother had never even discussed what had happened in China 20 or why his brother had come to the United States. See Wensheng 21 Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 63, 66-67 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing 225 that adverse credibility determination may be based on inherent 1 implausibility in applicant’s story); Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft , 2 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives very 3 spare testimony . . . the IJ . . . may fairly wonder whether 4 the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled in part on other 5 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 6 305 (2d Cir. 2007). Additionally, Lin’s application failed to 7 mention that his brother had suffered similar persecution 8 despite a direct question asking him to discuss any harm 9 suffered by family members. See 8 U.S.C. 10 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. 11 Similarly, Lin’s mother and grandmother also failed to mention 12 his brother’s persecution in their letters. See Xiu Xia Lin , 13 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. 14 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency reasonably 15 relied further on his failure to provide sufficient 16 corroboration. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 17 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ reasonably concluded that the letters 18 from Lin’s relatives, friends, and church in China were entitled 19 to little weight because the authors were not available for 20 cross-examination and, as discussed above, they omitted 21 significant aspects of his claim. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d 226 at 165-66 & n.3; Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). 1 Moreover, the IJ was not compelled to credit Lin’s explanation 2 that his twin brother could not testify because he also has an 3 asylum application pending in removal proceedings. Cf. Yan 4 Juan Chen v. Holder , 658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding 5 that a reasonable fact finder is not compelled to conclude that 6 a spouse is unavailable to testify based on fear of arrest due 7 to unlawful status). 8 Given Lin’s inconsistent statements and evidence, 9 implausible and evasive testimony, and lack of corroboration, 10 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 11 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That 12 determination is dispositive of Lin’s claims for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims 14 are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 15 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 18 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 19 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 20 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 21 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 227 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 1 34.1(b). 2
FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4