17-842 Shijie Lin v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A208 154 298 

### 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 8 th**  **day of June, two thousand eighteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 8 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SHIJIE LIN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 17-842** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, 23 NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jonathan A. 27 Robbins, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Tracey N. McDonald, Trial 292 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Shijie Lin, a native and citizen of the 10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 8, 2017, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a July 5, 2016, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin Shijie, No. A 208 154 298 15 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2017), aff’g No. A 208 154 298 (Immig. Ct. 16 N.Y. City July 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 19 both the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s decision “for the sake 20 of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 21 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are 223 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin 1 v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 3 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 4 inconsistencies or omissions in an applicant’s oral and 5 written statements and other record evidence, regardless of 6 whether any such discrepancies “go[] to the heart of the 7 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 8 Lin, 534 F.3d at 163-64, 166-67. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s 9 credibility determination unless . . . it is plain that no 10 reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility 11 ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse 12 credibility determination is supported by substantial 13 evidence. 14 The agency reasonably relied on a series of 15 inconsistencies and omissions relating to Shijie Lin’s 16 allegations of past harm. First, as the IJ found, Shijie Lin 17 testified to receiving medical treatment following his 18 detention, but his application and his father’s letter 19 omitted that information. See id. (upholding agency’s 20 reliance on omissions from supporting letters). 214 Although “asylum applicants are not required to list every 1 incident of persecution” in their applications, Pavlova v. 2
INS , 441 F.3d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 2006), where, as here, an asylum 3 application otherwise contained detailed information about 4 events, the IJ’s reliance on t he omission was reasonable, see 5 Lianping Li v. Lynch , 839 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir. 2016) 6 (affirming adverse credibility determination when 7 petitioner’s “asylum application did not simply omit 8 incidents of persecution . . . [but rather] described the 9 same incidents of persecution differently”). The agency was 10 not required to credit Shijie Lin’s explanation that both he 11 and his father omitted the treatment because it was brief and 12 at a private clinic. See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 13 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer 14 a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to 15 secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact16 finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.” (internal 17 quotation marks omitted)). 18 Second, the agency also reasonably relied on Shijie Lin’s 19 inconsistent descriptions of his beating. See Lianping Li , 20 839 F.3d at 150. Shijie Lin testified that he was struck 215 three or four times with a wooden rod on the day of his 1 arrest. But in response to the credible fear interviewer 2 asking “[h]ow many times did they hit you with the wooden rod 3 the day you were arrested,” Shijie Lin stated that he was 4 only struck once. Given the precise question at the 5 interview, the IJ reasonably relied on this inconsistency. 6
See Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 F.3d 715, 724-25 (2d Cir. 2009) 7 (explaining that one sign of reliability of an interview is 8 whether the interviewer asked questions designed to elicit a 9 possible asylum claim). Although Shijie Lin’s interpretation 10 that he meant one beating, not one strike, is plausible, the 11 IJ’s alternate interpretation is also supported by the 12 record. See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 13 2007) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, 14 the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly 15 erroneous. . . . Rather, a reviewing court must defer to that 16 choice so long as the deductions are not illogical or 17 implausible.” (internal citations and quotation marks 18 omitted)). 19 Third and finally, the agency reasonably relied on 20 inconsistent statements about whether Shijie Lin’s aunt 216 called to warn him that the police were looking for him. See 1 Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. Shijie Lin testified that his 2 aunt called, but her letter omitted that fact and mentions 3 only that Shijie Lin’s mother called her to say Shijie Lin 4 would be arriving at her home. Shijie Lin did not have a 5 compelling explanation for the omission. See Majidi , 430 6 F.3d at 80. 7 Taken as a whole, these inconsistencies and omissions 8 provide substantial evidence for t he adverse credibility 9 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. Because 10 Shijie Lin’s claims were all based on the same factual 11 predicate, the adverse credibility determination is 12 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 13 relief. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 14 2006). 15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 17 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 18 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 19 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 20 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 217 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 1 34.1(b). 2

FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 4 Clerk of Court 5