#### JIAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

17-103

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 10, 2018

FOR PETITIONER: Cora J. Chang, New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel; Christina P. Greer, Trial Attorney; Kiriaki Grammenidis, Law Student Intern, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Jian Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a December 20, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a February 5, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In*re *Jian Lin,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2016), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” *Wangchuok 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).

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on ... the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements ...., the internal consistency of each such statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record .,. without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); *see Xiu Xia Lin,*534 F.3d at 163-64.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not credible as to his .claim that Chinese officials detained and harmed him on account of his distribution of religious flyers or as to his continuing practice of Christianity in the United States.

*37The agency reasonably relied on record inconsistencies regarding whether Chinese police broke several of Lin’s ribs and whether he was unable to attend church for his first two years in the United States because he was living in Virginia and there was no church there where Chinese was spoken. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); *see also Xiu Xia Lin,*534 F.3d at 166-67 & n.3. Lin did not provide compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. *See Majidi v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 2005) (“A petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for his inconsistent statements to secure relief; he must demonstrate that a reasonable fact-finder would be *compelled*to credit his testimony.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The agency reasonably relied further on his failure to rehabilitate Lin’s credibility with reliable corroborating evidence. “An applicant’s failure to corroborate his or her testimony may bear on credibility, because the absence of corroboration in general makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has already been called into question.” *Biao Yang v. Gonzales,*496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). As the agency noted, Lin failed to provide any evidence to corroborate his claim that police broke his ribs, or that he attends church weekly in the United States. Furthermore, the agency did not err in declining to credit Lin’s mother’s unsworn letter, in which she claimed to have bailed him out of jail and witnessed his injuries. *See Y.C. v. Holder,*741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (deferring to agency’s decision to afford little weight to relative’s letter because it was -unsworn and from an interested witness).

Given the inconsistencies and the laek of corroboration, the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); *Xiu Xia Lin,*534 F.3d at 167. That determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual predicate. *See Paul v. Gonzales,*444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.