[ DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 14808

________________________

Agency No. A098

- 548

- 604

LIN BIN, a.k.a. Bin Lin, Petitioner,

versus US ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

________________________ Petition for Review o f a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ ( January 21 , 2014) Before CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and GARZA, ∗ Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

∗ Honorable Emilio M. Garza, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 12-14808 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 1 of 52 Bin Lin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ s ( “BIA”) order affirming the Immigration J udge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusions that Lin ’s testimony and corroborating evidence fail ed to establish that he was persecuted based on his religious activities. After review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and having the benefit of oral argument , we deny Lin’s petition for review. This case was pre viously reviewed by this Court

. See Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 305 F. App’x 649 (11th Cir. 2008)

. There , w e held that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse

- credibility finding regarding Lin’s testimony , but we remanded because the BIA “ erred by failing to consider all the evidence Lin submitted to substantiate his allegation of religious persecution .” Id. at 650. We “remand[ed] for the [BIA] to consider all corroborating evidence submitted by Lin to determine whether L in was incarcerated on the basis of his religious activity .” Id. N othing in our prior opinion ruled on that corroborating evidence, but we remanded because the BIA had failed to consider all the evidence. In turn, the BIA remanded to the IJ “for consid eration of all corroborating evidence in the record and entry of a new decision

. ” Contrary to Lin’s arguments,

Case: 12-14808 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 2 of 53 nothing in our prior opinion prohibited the BIA from remanding to the IJ to consider all the evidence and enter a new decision

. Here , we conclude that s ubstantial evidence supports the finding that Lin’s corroborating evidence was insufficient, in light of Lin’s incredible testimony , to
meet his burden of proof for establishing entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT rel ief. Given Lin’s weak testimony, he had a much greater need to provide corroborating evidence to support his claims. See Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen ., 418 F.3d 1198, 1201 (11th Ci r. 2005) . In support of his claims, Lin submitted a release notice from a re - e ducation labor camp where he was allegedly detained , a letter from his ex

- wife, and a letter from Mr. Ye , the alleged preacher at Lin’s underground church in Fuzhou . The record establishes that both the IJ and BIA considered these three documents , and sub stantial evidence supports the finding that these documents were unreliable given the inconsistencies and omissions between the documents themselves and Lin’s testimony. S ee Mohammed v. U.S. Att’y Gen

. , 547 F.3d 1340, 1346

- 47 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding tha t substantial evidence supported the finding that the alien failed to establish past persecution based on incredible testimony and unreliable corroborative evidence). The BIA pointed out that the release notice from Lin’s purported detention
in 2 003 was signed by Lin’s ex

- wife, yet his ex

- wife’s letter did not mention this

Case: 12-14808 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 3 of 54 detention. The BIA further noted that while Mr. Ye’s letter mentioned Lin’s detention, it did not provide any specific details about the detention and did not state that Lin belonged t o or particip ated in an underground church, as the release notice indicated. Moreover, the BIA’s interpretation

— that Mr. Ye’s letter , which stated that Lin went to Xiamen to spread the word of God, conflict ed with Lin’s testimony

— was not unreasonable. See Adefemi v. Ashcroft , 386 F.3d 1022, 1029 (11th Cir. 2004)

. As we said in addressing Lin’s prior petition for review,
Mr. “Ye’ s letter allows an inference that Lin

. . . went to Xiamen to proselytize ” rather than to transport Bibles. Lin , 305 F. App ’ x at 650

. Substantial evidence supports the finding that the inconsistencies between the documents and Lin’s testimony fail to corroborate his past persecution claim. See Mohammed , 547 F.3d at 1345

- 4 7 . Based on Lin’s incredible testimony and unreliable supporting evidence, the record does not compel a finding that Lin was detained because of his religious activities and , thus , suffered past persecution. Id. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that the background information on China’s country conditions did not specifically relate to Lin and failed to salvage his incredible testimony and , therefore , did not compel a finding that Lin h as a well

- founded fear of future persecution. Id. at 1346. Although Lin argues otherwise, t he record does not compel a finding that Lin presented “specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear that he . . . will be

Case: 12-14808 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 4 of 55 singled out for persecution.” See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft , 257 F.3d 1262, 128 7 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks om itted)

. Because Lin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he likewise failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief

. Id. at 1 303

- 04

. Accordingly, we deny Lin’s petition for review. PETITION DENIED . Case: 12-14808 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 5 of 5