16

‐ 398

‐ ag

Peng Lin v. Sessions

BIA

Morace, IJ

A205 930 983

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER J ANUARY 1, 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F EDERAL R ULE OF A PPELLATE

P ROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ʹ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT

FILED WITH THIS COURT

, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F EDERAL A PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE

( WITH THE NOTATION ʺ SUMMARY ORDER ʺ ). A PARTY CITING 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 for the Second

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in

the City of New York, on the 23 rd day of April, two thousand eighteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

DENNY CHIN,

SUSAN L. CARNEY,

Circuit Judges

.

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x

PENG LIN, AKA JIEDI LIN,

Petitioner

,

v. 16

‐ 398

‐ ag

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ x

FOR PETITIONER: TROY NADER MOSLEMI, Flushing, New

York.‐ 2

‐ FOR RESPONDENT: CHRISTOPHER BUCHANAN, Trial Attorney,

(Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney

General, Civil Division, Melissa Neiman

‐ Kelting, Assistant Director, on the brief ), Office

of Immigration Litigation, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C..

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the ʺ BIA ʺ ), IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the petition for review is hereby DENIED

.

Petitioner Peng Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a

January 19, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming the May 18, 2015 decision of an

Immigration Judge ( ʺ IJ ʺ ) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under

the Convention Against Torture ( ʺ CAT ʺ ). In re Peng Lin

, No. A205 930 983 (B.I.A. Jan.

19, 2016), aff’g No. A205 930 983 (Immig. Ct. New York City, May 18, 2015). We assume

the parties ʹ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and

issues on appeal.

Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJ ʹ s and the

BIA ʹ s opinions ʺ for the sake of completeness. ʺ Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.

, 448

F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey

, 534 F.3d 162, 165

‐ 66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per

curiam).‐ 3

‐ Substantial evidence supports the agency ʹ s determination that Lin was not

credible. Although Lin testified consistently with his earlier statements regarding the

alleged police abuse he suffered at an unregistered church in China, he made a number

of admittedly false statements about his prior travel, including: (1) how many times he

had obtained a passport; (2) whether he obtained a passport to flee persecution or to

travel; (3) when and how often he left China; and (4) where he travelled. These

numerous false statements provided a substantial basis for the agency to question Lin ʹ s

veracity with respect to all aspects of his claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also

Siewe v. Gonzales

, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) ( ʺ So a single false document or a single

instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the

alien ʹ s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence. ʺ ).

Lin also failed to exhaust his due process claim. Lin ʹ s brief to the BIA only

characterized his claim regarding the unsubmitted record as evidentiary in nature, with

a single citation to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a). ʺ While this Court will not limit the

petitioner ʹ to the exact contours of his argument below ʹ

. . . the issue raised on appeal

must be either a ʹ specific, subsidiary legal argument[] ʹ or ʹ an extension of [an] argument

. . . raised directly before the BIA. ʹʺ Steevenez v. Gonzales

, 476 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 2007)

(per curiam) (quoting Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2005)). Lin ʹ s claim on appeal is

neither a specific, subsidiary legal argument nor an extension of his argument below.

We therefore conclude that Lin ʹ s due process claim was unexhausted. Moreover, even‐ 4

‐ assuming the claim was exhausted, Lin was not prejudiced by the Government’s failure

to submit the document in question because he admitted the veracity of the information

contained therein. See Garcia

‐ Villeda v. Mukasey

, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008).

We have considered Lin’s remaining arguments and determined they lack

merit. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED

. As we have completed our

review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk