19

- 3630 Lin v. Garland BIA Vomacka , IJ A 206 529 429 

### 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 1**  **2 t**  **h d**  **a y of**  **N o**  **v e**  **m b**  **e r**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**

  4
** one**
**.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  8 **GERARD E. LYNCH ,**  9 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **HAIYAN LIN ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 19** 

**- 3630**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 20 **R espondent** 

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Joan Xie , Esq. , New York , NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant 26 Attorney General; Mary Jane 272 Candaux , Assistant Director ; Remi 1 Da Rocha

- Afodu , Trial Attorney , 2 Office of Immigration Litigation , 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 6 U PON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 9

is DENIED. 10

Petitioner Haiyan Lin , a native and citizen of the 11
People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a n October 25 , 12

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

of an I mmigration Judge (“IJ”) d enying Lin ’s application for 14
asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the 15
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Haiyan Lin , No. 16

A 206 529 429 (B.I.A. Oct. 25 , 2019 ), aff’g No. A 206 529 429 17
(Immig r . Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22 , 2018 ). We assume the parties’ 18
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural his tory. 19
Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 20
decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s demeanor 21
finding that the BIA declined to affirm. See Xue Hong Yang 22
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 23
The applicable standards of review are well est ablished. See 24

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 253 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 1
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 2
relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 3

determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 4
or witness’s written and oral statements . . . , [and] the 5
internal consistency of each such statement . . . without 6
regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood 7
goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other 8

relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer 9
. . . to an IJ’s credibility determinati on unless, from the 10
totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable 11

fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” 12
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) ; 13
accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. Substantial evidence 14
supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not credible 15

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

for practicing Falun Gong and that he fears future persecution 17
on that ground

. 18
The IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s inconsistent evidence 19
regarding when he last travelled to China, how long he was 20
detained, why he did not submit evidence of the medical 21
treatment he received after his release, and whether he 224 organized a Falun Gong promotion al event or was merely 1
photographed at it

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

also Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) 3
(“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude an alien from 4
showing that an IJ was compelled to find h im credible. 5
Multiple inconsistencies would so preclude even more 6
forcefully.”). The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s 7
inability to describe the five movements of Falun Gong despite 8
his claim to have practiced for more than six years

. See 9

Rizal v. G onzales , 442 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing 10
that there may be “ instances in which the nature of an 11
individual applicant’s account would render his lack of a 12
certain degree of doctrinal knowledge suspect and could 13
therefore provide substantial evid ence in support of an 14
adverse credibility finding” )

. 15
Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency 16
reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate his 17
testimony with reliable corroborating evidence. See Biao 18
Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007) ( “An 19
applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may 20
bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in 21
general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony 225 that has already been called into question.” )

. We find no 1
error in the agency’s decision declining to credit unsworn 2

letters from Lin’s father and friend in China

. See Y.C. v. 3

Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We generally defer 4
to the agency’s evaluation of the weight to be afforded an 5

app licant’s documentary evidence.”); see also Mei Chai Ye v. 6
U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 489 F.3d 517, 524 (2d Cir. 2007) 7
(“[T]his court has . . . firmly embraced the commonsensical 8
notion that striking similarities between affidavits are an 9

indication that the st atements are ‘ canned. ’ ”)

. The IJ also 10
reasonably noted that Lin failed to submit evidence from his 11
uncle who purportedly paid the fine to secure his release 12
from detention, the hospital where he sought treatment, or 13
his fellow Falun Gong practitioners in the United States. 14

Given the inconsistencies , Lin’s lack of knowledge of 15
Falun Gong , and absence of reliable corroboration , the 16
agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by 17

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

That determination was dispositive of asylum, withholding of 19
removal, and CAT relief because all three claims were based 20
on the same factual predicate

. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 21

F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 226 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6