20-3554

Chao Lin v. Garland

BIA

Christensen, IJ

A209 390 956

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 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 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 15th day of June, two thousand twentythree.

PRESENT:

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

JOSEPH F. BIANCO,

MYRNA PÉREZ,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

CHAO LIN,

Petitioner,

v. 20-3554

NAC

MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

_____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Troy Nader Moslemi, Esq., 

Flushing, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General; John S. Hogan,
2

Assistant Director; Matthew A. 

Spurlock, Trial Attorney, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

is DENIED.

Petitioner Chao Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, seeks review of a September 17, 2020, 

decision of the BIA affirming a May 31, 2018, decision of an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chao Lin, No. A209 390 956

(B.I.A. Sept. 17, 2020), aff’g No. A209 390 956 (Immig. Ct. 

N.Y. City May 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

with the underlying facts and procedural history.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 

the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 

Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he 

administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 
3

contrary.”); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d 

Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination for 

substantial evidence). 

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 

or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , the internal 

consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such 

statements with other evidence of record . . . , and any 

inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard 

to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to 

the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant 

factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to 

an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality 

of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable factfinder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu 

Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord 

Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. 

The record here contains substantial evidence to support 

the IJ’s credibility determination. Lin alleged that, in 

January 2016, the police arrested and detained him for 15 
4

days following a raid on an underground Christian church, 

other inmates beat him because of his religion, and he feared 

future arrests and beatings on the same grounds. The agency

reasonably relied on inconsistencies between Lin’s 

statements, testimony from his pastor in the United States, 

and a letter from a friend in China. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

Indeed, Lin does not dispute that the record reflects 

inconsistencies regarding what he was doing in the church 

when the raid began, whether the individual who introduced 

him to the church and wrote a letter in support of his 

application had been detained following the raid, and his 

practice of Christianity in the United States. Lin argues 

that these inconsistencies are trivial. However, the agency 

may rely on “the cumulative effect” of even minor 

inconsistencies. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167 (quotation 

marks omitted). 

The multiple inconsistencies, relating to both events in 

China and Lin’s practice of Christianity in the United States, 

constitute substantial evidence for the adverse credibility 

determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 
5

Lin, 534 F.3d at 167; see also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 

137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]even a single inconsistency 

might preclude an alien from showing that an IJ was compelled 

to find him credible. Multiple inconsistencies would so 

preclude even more forcefully.”).

Moreover, the agency was not required to credit his 

explanations for the inconsistencies, particularly as the 

record reflected that his pastor changed his testimony when 

Lin shook his head in response to a statement that created an 

inconsistency. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d 

Cir. 2005); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d 

Cir. 2007) 170 (“[A] single false document or a single 

instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the 

petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated 

or unauthenticated evidence.”). Finally, contrary to Lin’s 

position, the adverse credibility determination is 

dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 

because all three forms of relief were based on the same 

factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156–

57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 
6

For the foregoing reasons, Lin’s petition for review is 

DENIED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

Clerk of Court