21

- 6552 Jin v. Garland BIA Schoppert , IJ A 093 446 460 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). 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 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 25 th da y of April, two thousand 3 twenty- four
. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 MINGJIN JIN, 13 Petitioner , 14 15 v. 21-6552 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent
. 20

_____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER : David K. S. Kim, Law Office of David K. S. 23 Kim, P.C., Flushing , NY. 242 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 1 Attorney General ; Cindy S. Ferrier , Assistant 2 Director; Sunah Lee, Senior Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, Washington, 5 D C. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 7 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 8
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED. 9
Petitioner Mingjin Jin , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China , 10
seeks review of a September 22, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a November 11 16, 2018 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”)

. In re Mingjin Jin , No. A093 446 460 (B.I.A. Sept. 22, 2021 ), aff’g No. A 093 14 446 460 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 15 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the 17
BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just. , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan 18 Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual 19 findings, including an adverse credibility determination , “under the substantial 20 evidence standard,” and we review questions of law and the application of law to 213 fact de novo. Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he 1 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 2 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a 4 trier of fact may base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between 5 the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and 6 whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the 7 statements were made), . . . the consistency of such statements with other evidence 8 of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without 9 regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of 10 the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). 11
“We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination unless, from the totality of the 12 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make such an 13 adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 14 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. 15 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 16
determination. As the agency found and Jin does not dispute, her two 17 applications were inconsistent regarding when she came to the United States, 184 whether she was married, and whether she had children. Jin initially alleged that 1 she entered the United States in 1981, was single, had no children, and feared 2 future persecution because a friend in China, who was a member of an 3 underground Christian church, was arrested, detained, beaten, and interrogated 4 by the police. Her amended application alleged that she entered the United States 5 20 years later, in 2001, that she had married in China in 1990, that she had one son 6 born in China in 1990, and that she feared future persecution as a Christian , in 7 part, because her son, who was also in the United States applying for asylum, had 8 been arrested, detained, and beaten by the police for his involvement with an 9 underground Christian church. 10 Jin argues that the inconsistencies were minor and immaterial , that the 11 agency failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, and that we should 12 remand for the agency to consider that she voluntarily admitted the false 13
statements and that her timely retraction is favorable to her credibility. But the 14 agency did not err in relying on the inconsistencies regarding her entry, her 15 marriage, or her child. “[A] single false document or a single instance of false 16 testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s 17
uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.” Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 185 170 (2d Cir. 2007). And “[e]ven where an IJ relies on discrepancies or lacunae 1 that, if taken separately, concern matters collateral or ancillary to the claim, the 2 cumulative effect may nevertheless be deemed consequential by the fact

- finder.” 3
Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167 (quotation marks omitted). 4 Where, as here, an applicant admits false statements, the “IJ may, either 5 expressly or impliedly, rely on [the maxim false in one thing, false in everything] 6
to discredit evidence that does not benefit from corroboration or authentication 7 independent of the petitioner’s own credibility.” Siewe , 480 F.3d at 170. The 8 sincerity of Jin’s practice of Christianity, how she would practice if returned to 9 China, and the reliability of supporting l etters from h er sister and friend in China 10 confirming that she is Christian all rely on Jin’s own credibility

. Id. ; see also Likai 11
Gao v. Barr , 968 F.3d 137, 149 (2d Cir. 2020) (concluding that the “IJ acted within 12 her discretion in according .

. . little weight” to letters from applicant’s wife and 13 friend “because the declarants (particularly [the applicant’s] wife) were interested 14 parties and neither was available for cross

- examination”). Evidence of Jin’s 15 baptism and church membership do not resolve the credibility issues , which are 16
rooted in her willingness to lie on her asylum application and during her asylum 17 interview, and the agency found that her lack of credibility called into question 186 whether she would practice Christianity in China in a way that would call her to 1 the attention of the authorities, such as in an unregistered church

. 2 Further, as Government argues , Jin’s timely retraction argument is not 3 properly before us because she failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Ud Din v. 4 Garland , 72 F.4th 411, 419

– 20 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2023) ( confirming that issue exhaustion 5 is mandatory and holding that “[a] c laim

- processing rule may be mandatory in the 6 sense that a court must enforce the rule if a party properly raises it” (quotation 7 marks omitted)). Moreover, contrary to Jin’s position, he r recantation of the false 8 statements was not voluntary and timely: she confirmed the false information at 9 her interview, she waited four years to amend her application, and she did not 10 acknowledge the false statements until confronted. See Matter of Namio , 14 I. & N. 11 Dec. 412, 414 (B.I.A. 1973) (requiring that “ recantation . . . be voluntary and 12 without delay”)

. 13 Because Jin’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief 14 were based on the same factual predicate, the agency’s adverse credibility 15 determination is dispositive of all relief. See Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76 ; Siewe , 16
480 F.3d at 170

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

. All pending 1 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 2
FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 4 Clerk of Court 5