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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

20th 4 day of April, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 GUIDO CALABRESI,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 CHANGWEN LIN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 16-766 

17 NAC 

18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Aminat Sabak, New York, NY. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

26 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 

27 Hogan, Assistant Director; Matthew 

28 A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office 

29 of Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, D.C. 
2 

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Changwen Lin, a native and citizen of the 

6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 17, 2016, 

7 decision of the BIA affirming a July 8, 2015 decision of an 

8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, 

9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against 

10 Torture (“CAT”). In re Changwen Lin, No. A205 628 411 (B.I.A. 

11 Feb. 17, 2016), aff’g No. A205 628 411 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 

12 8, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 

16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 

17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 

18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. 

19 Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). “Considering the 

20 totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier 

21 of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, 

22 candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the inherent 
3 

1 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, the consistency 

2 between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements . . . 

3 , the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the 

4 consistency of such statements with other evidence of record 

5 . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, 

6 or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 

7 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 

8 163-64. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

9 determination that Lin was not credible as to his claim that 

10 Chinese officials detained and beat him after a raid on his 

11 unregistered church in China, and that he fears persecution on 

12 account of his continued religious practice. 

13 The agency reasonably relied on numerous inconsistencies 

14 in the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 

15 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. A letter from Lin’s church in China 

16 omitted any mention that police had arrested Lin and more than 

17 twenty other church members, and the letterhead and official 

18 stamp on that letter bore the name, Jesus True Church, which 

19 contradicted Lin’s testimony that the church was called Real 

20 Jesus Christ Church but did not have an official name. 

21 Furthermore, Lin’s testimony was internally inconsistent 

22 regarding how often police have looked for him at his mother’s 
4 

1 house in China, and his mother’s letter failed to mention that 

2 police had visited her between thirty and forty times (as would 

3 have been the case according to Lin’s testimony). Lin did not 

4 provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. 

5 See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A 

6 petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for 

7 his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must 

8 demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled

9 to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks and 

10 citations omitted)). 

11 The agency also reasonably found Lin’s testimony vague and 

12 implausible, and his evidence inconsistent regarding his 

13 brother’s alleged religious persecution. See 8 U.S.C. 

14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Lin testified that he and his twin 

15 brother live together and attend the same church in the United 

16 States and that his brother has applied for asylum based on 

17 religious persecution. Yet, Lin did not know where his brother 

18 works, he did not know what happened to his brother in China, 

19 and he claimed, after vague and evasive answers, that he and 

20 his brother had never even discussed what had happened in China 

21 or why his brother had come to the United States. See Wensheng 

22 Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 66-67 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing 
5 

1 that adverse credibility determination may be based on inherent 

2 implausibility in applicant’s story); Jin Shui Qiu v. Ashcroft, 

3 329 F.3d 140, 152 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where an applicant gives very 

4 spare testimony . . . the IJ . . . may fairly wonder whether 

5 the testimony is fabricated.”), overruled in part on other 

6 grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 

7 305 (2d Cir. 2007). Additionally, Lin’s application failed to 

8 mention that his brother had suffered similar persecution 

9 despite a direct question asking him to discuss any harm 

10 suffered by family members. See 8 U.S.C. 

11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. 

12 Similarly, Lin’s mother and grandmother also failed to mention 

13 his brother’s persecution in their letters. See Xiu Xia Lin, 

14 534 F.3d at 165-66 & n.3. 

15 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency reasonably 

16 relied further on his failure to provide sufficient 

17 corroboration. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 

18 (2d Cir. 2007). The IJ reasonably concluded that the letters 

19 from Lin’s relatives, friends, and church in China were entitled 

20 to little weight because the authors were not available for 

21 cross-examination and, as discussed above, they omitted 

22 significant aspects of his claim. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d 
6 

1 at 165-66 & n.3; Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013). 

2 Moreover, the IJ was not compelled to credit Lin’s explanation 

3 that his twin brother could not testify because he also has an 

4 asylum application pending in removal proceedings. Cf. Yan 

5 Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 253 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding 

6 that a reasonable fact finder is not compelled to conclude that 

7 a spouse is unavailable to testify based on fear of arrest due 

8 to unlawful status). 

9 Given Lin’s inconsistent statements and evidence, 

10 implausible and evasive testimony, and lack of corroboration, 

11 the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 

12 substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). That 

13 determination is dispositive of Lin’s claims for asylum, 

14 withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims 

15 are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 

16 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

21 is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in 

22 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 
7 

1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

2 34.1(b). 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk