19-3630

Lin v. Garland

BIA

Vomacka, IJ

A206 529 429

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 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

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

New York, on the 12th 4 day of November, two thousand twenty5 one.

6

7 PRESENT:

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI,

11 Circuit Judges.

12 _____________________________________

13

14 HAIYAN LIN,

15 Petitioner,

16

17 v. 19-3630

18 NAC

19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 _____________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Joan Xie, Esq., New York, NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Mary Jane 
2

1 Candaux, Assistant Director; Remi 

2 Da Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, 

3 Office of Immigration Litigation,

4 United States Department of 

5 Justice, Washington, DC.

6

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Haiyan Lin, a native and citizen of the 

12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 25, 

13 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a March 22, 2018, decision 

14 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for 

15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 

16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Haiyan Lin, No. 

17 A206 529 429 (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2019), aff’g No. A206 529 429 

18 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ 

19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

20 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 

21 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s demeanor 

22 finding that the BIA declined to affirm. See Xue Hong Yang 

23 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 

24 The applicable standards of review are well established. See

25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 
3

1 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 

2 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 

3 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 

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

5 or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , [and] the 

6 internal consistency of each such statement . . . without 

7 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 

8 goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other 

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

10 . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the 

11 totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 

12 fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 

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

14 accord Hong Fei Gao, 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence 

15 supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not credible 

16 as to his claim that police in China detained and beat him 

17 for practicing Falun Gong and that he fears future persecution 

18 on that ground.

19 The IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s inconsistent evidence 

20 regarding when he last travelled to China, how long he was 

21 detained, why he did not submit evidence of the medical 

22 treatment he received after his release, and whether he 
4

1 organized a Falun Gong promotional event or was merely 

2 photographed at it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see 

3 also Likai Gao v. Barr, 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) 

4 (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from 

5 showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible. 

6 Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more 

7 forcefully.”). The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s 

8 inability to describe the five movements of Falun Gong despite 

9 his claim to have practiced for more than six years. See 

10 Rizal v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing 

11 that there may be “instances in which the nature of an 

12 individual applicant’s account would render his lack of a 

13 certain degree of doctrinal knowledge suspect and could 

14 therefore provide substantial evidence in support of an 

15 adverse credibility finding”). 

16 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency 

17 reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 

18 testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. See Biao 

19 Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) (“An 

20 applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may 

21 bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 

22 general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 
5

1 that has already been called into question.”). We find no 

2 error in the agency’s decision declining to credit unsworn 

3 letters from Lin’s father and friend in China. See Y.C. v. 

4 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer 

5 to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an 

6 applicant’s documentary evidence.”); see also Mei Chai Ye v. 

7 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) 

8 (“[T]his court has . . . firmly embraced the commonsensical 

9 notion that striking similarities between affidavits are an 

10 indication that the statements are ‘canned.’”). The IJ also 

11 reasonably noted that Lin failed to submit evidence from his 

12 uncle who purportedly paid the fine to secure his release 

13 from detention, the hospital where he sought treatment, or 

14 his fellow Falun Gong practitioners in the United States. 

15 Given the inconsistencies, Lin’s lack of knowledge of 

16 Falun Gong, and absence of reliable corroboration, the 

17 agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 

18 substantial evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 

19 That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of 

20 removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based 

21 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 

22 F.3d 148, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006). 
6

1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

2 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

3 stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 

5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

6 Clerk of Court