1

Peter D. Keisler has been appointed to serve as Acting Attorney General, and

is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2393

___________

Xiang Cheng Lin, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Peter D. Keisler, *

Acting Attorney General * [UNPUBLISHED]

of the United States,1 *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2007

Filed: October 12, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Xiang Cheng Lin (Lin), a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s

(IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). See Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 413 (8th Cir.
-2-

2007); Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of

review). We deny the petition.

When an asylum decision is based on an adverse credibility finding, as it was

in this case, we generally defer to the IJ if the credibility finding is supported by

“specific, cogent reasons for disbelief.” See id. at 982 (citation omitted). Upon

careful review, we conclude the IJ provided such reasons: inconsistencies in Lin’s

testimony and asylum applications and Lin’s failure to provide corroborating

evidence. See Hamzehi v. INS, 64 F.3d 1240, 1243 (8th Cir. 1995) (upholding an

adverse credibility determination because the asylum applicant did not provide

specific, consistent details of, or even consistently describe, events giving rise to

asylum claim); Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

(concluding the IJ did not err in demanding corroborating evidence where an asylum

applicant’s narrative was not credible). The adverse credibility finding is dispositive

of Lin’s withholding-of-removal and CAT claims as well. See Sheikh v. Gonzales,

427 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2005) (withholding of removal); Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of

Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522-23 (2d Cir. 2005) (CAT).

Lin argues his due process rights were violated during the hearing, but he has

pointed to nothing in the record suggesting he was denied a full and fair opportunity

to present his case, or he was otherwise deprived of fundamental fairness, see Burger

v. Gonzales, Nos. 03-40395, 05-1058, 2007 WL 2331944, at *2 (2d Cir. Aug. 17,

2007); we lack jurisdiction to review Lin’s newly raised assertion that he should be

in exclusion, not removal, proceedings, Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir.

2000) (ruling an appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review a claim that has not been

first presented to BIA); and there is no evidence in the record to suggest any penalty

Lin faces for violation of Chinese exit laws would be because of one of the protected

grounds, see Behzadpour v. United States, 946 F.2d 1351, 1353 (8th Cir. 1991)

(stating punishment for violation of a fairly administered passport law is not political

persecution). 

We deny the petition.

______________________________