14-1723 Lin v. Lynch BIA Nelson, IJ A087 651 141 

### 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** 1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **25 th**  **day of April, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **REENA RAGGI,** 7 **DENNY CHIN,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **QUAN LIN,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 14-1723** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** David A. Bredin, Esq., Flushing, 23 New York. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 26 Deputy Assistant Attorney 27 General; Linda S. Wernery, 282 Assistant Director; Gregory M. 1 Kelch, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, D.C. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 9

DENIED. 10 Petitioner Quan Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 11 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 29, 2014 decision 12 of the BIA affirming a March 8, 2012 decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding 14 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Quan Lin , No. A087 651 141 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 16 2014), aff’g No. A087 651 141 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 8, 17 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 18 facts and procedural history in this case. 19 We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. On the 20 facts of this case, therefore, we consider the IJ’s adverse 21 determinations as to Lin’s claimed past persecution and 22 professed fear of future persecution without reviewing the IJ’s 23 finding of untimeliness, which the BIA declined to consider. 24
See Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 253 2005) (reviewing IJ judgment as modified by BIA, i.e. , minus 1 single argument rejected by BIA). The applicable standards of 2 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 3 see also Su Chun Hu v. Holder , 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2009). 4 1. Past Persecution: Adverse Credibility Determination 5 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 6 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum 7 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and 8 inconsistencies in his statements and other record evidence 9 “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the 10 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 11 Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). 12 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 13 determination here. 14 Specifically, the IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s evasive and 15 unresponsive demeanor when testifying about his asylum 16 interview and the use of his own passport to depart China. See 17 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “[W]e accord[] particular 18 weight” to an IJ’s evaluation of an applicant’s demeanor where, 19 as here, it finds support in the record. Majidi v. Gonzales , 20 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 214 The IJ’s adverse demeanor finding and credibility 1 determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies 2 regarding how police transported Lin to the police station and 3 how his family paid for his release from detention. See Li Hua 4 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); 5 see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165-67. Lin did not provide 6 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See 7 Majidi , 430 F.3d at 80. 8 The agency also reasonably found it implausible that Lin 9 would have used his own passport to depart China when he claimed 10 to have been released from detention on the condition that he 11 remain in his local area. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 12 63, 67-68 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2007). Given these demeanor, 13 inconsistency, and implausibility findings, substantial 14 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not 15 credible as to his claim of past persecution. See Xiu Xia Lin , 16 534 F.3d at 165-66. 17 2. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution 18 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 19 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of 20 future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must 21 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, see 225 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 1 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either 2 that he would be singled out for persecution or that the country 3 of removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting those 4 similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). 5 The record did not here compel the agency to find that Lin 6 established a well-founded fear of persecution in China on 7 account of his practice of Christianity while in the United 8
States. 9 The record evidence of country conditions demonstrates 10 that between fifty and seventy million Christians practice in 11 unregistered churches in China, and that in some areas such 12 practice is tolerated without inter ference. Therefore, the 13 agency did not err in determining that Lin failed to demonstrate 14 either that officials are likely to discover his religious 15 practice in the United States, see Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey , 16 528 F.3d 135, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008), or that the persecution 17 of similarly situated Christians “is so systemic or pervasive 18 as to amount to a pattern or pra ctice of persecution” in China, 19

In re A-M- , 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation 20 omitted); see also Santoso v. Holder , 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 21 (2d Cir. 2009). 226 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that Lin 1 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on 2 account of his practice of Christianity, it did not err in 3 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because 4 those claims were based on the same factual predicate. See 5 Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 7 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 8 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 9 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 10 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 11 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 12 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 13
FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15