[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 of 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 5 
2

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 Judge’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 failed 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 previously reviewed by this Court. See Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 

305 F. App’x 649 (11th Cir. 2008). There, we 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 Lin was incarcerated on the basis of his 

religious activity.” Id. Nothing 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 consideration 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 5 
3

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 substantial 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 relief. 

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 Cir. 2005). In support of his claims, Lin submitted a release 

notice from a re-education 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 substantial evidence supports the finding 

that these documents were unreliable given the inconsistencies and omissions 

between the documents themselves and Lin’s testimony. See Mohammed v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340, 1346-47 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that 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 2003 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 5 
4

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 to or participated 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, conflicted 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 1345-47. 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 has a well-founded fear of future persecution. Id. at 1346. 

Although Lin argues otherwise, the 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 5 
5

singled out for persecution.” See Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th 

Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Lin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he likewise failed to 

establish eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Id. at 1303-04. 

Accordingly, we deny Lin’s petition for review. 

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 12-14808 Date Filed: 01/21/2014 Page: 5 of 5