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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

25th 4 day of April, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 REENA RAGGI,

8 DENNY CHIN, 

9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 QUAN LIN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-1723 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: David A. Bredin, Esq., Flushing, 

24 New York. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 

27 Deputy Assistant Attorney 

28 General; Linda S. Wernery, 
2 

1 Assistant Director; Gregory M. 

2 Kelch, Trial Attorney, Office of 

3 Immigration Litigation, United 

4 States Department of Justice, 

5 Washington, D.C. 

6 

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

10 DENIED. 

11 Petitioner Quan Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 

12 Republic of China, seeks review of an April 29, 2014 decision 

13 of the BIA affirming a March 8, 2012 decision of an Immigration 

14 Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding 

15 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

16 (“CAT”). In re Quan Lin, No. A087 651 141 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 

17 2014), aff’g No. A087 651 141 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 8, 

18 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

19 facts and procedural history in this case. 

20 We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. On the 

21 facts of this case, therefore, we consider the IJ’s adverse 

22 determinations as to Lin’s claimed past persecution and 

23 professed fear of future persecution without reviewing the IJ’s 

24 finding of untimeliness, which the BIA declined to consider. 

25 See Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 
3 

1 2005) (reviewing IJ judgment as modified by BIA, i.e., minus 

2 single argument rejected by BIA). The applicable standards of 

3 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 

4 see also Su Chun Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2009). 

5 1. Past Persecution: Adverse Credibility Determination 

6 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 

7 circumstances,” base a credibility finding on an asylum 

8 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and 

9 inconsistencies in his statements and other record evidence 

10 “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the 

11 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 

12 Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2008). 

13 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

14 determination here. 

15 Specifically, the IJ reasonably relied on Lin’s evasive and 

16 unresponsive demeanor when testifying about his asylum 

17 interview and the use of his own passport to depart China. See

18 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “[W]e accord[] particular 

19 weight” to an IJ’s evaluation of an applicant’s demeanor where, 

20 as here, it finds support in the record. Majidi v. Gonzales, 

21 430 F.3d 77, 81 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). 
4 

1 The IJ’s adverse demeanor finding and credibility 

2 determination are bolstered by record inconsistencies 

3 regarding how police transported Lin to the police station and 

4 how his family paid for his release from detention. See Li Hua 

5 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006); 

6 see also Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-67. Lin did not provide 

7 compelling explanations for these inconsistencies. See 

8 Majidi, 430 F.3d at 80. 

9 The agency also reasonably found it implausible that Lin 

10 would have used his own passport to depart China when he claimed 

11 to have been released from detention on the condition that he 

12 remain in his local area. See Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 

13 63, 67-68 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2007). Given these demeanor, 

14 inconsistency, and implausibility findings, substantial 

15 evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not 

16 credible as to his claim of past persecution. See Xiu Xia Lin, 

17 534 F.3d at 165-66. 

18 2. Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution 

19 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 

20 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of 

21 future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must 

22 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, see
5 

1 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 

2 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either 

3 that he would be singled out for persecution or that the country 

4 of removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting those 

5 similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). 

6 The record did not here compel the agency to find that Lin 

7 established a well-founded fear of persecution in China on 

8 account of his practice of Christianity while in the United 

9 States. 

10 The record evidence of country conditions demonstrates 

11 that between fifty and seventy million Christians practice in 

12 unregistered churches in China, and that in some areas such 

13 practice is tolerated without interference. Therefore, the 

14 agency did not err in determining that Lin failed to demonstrate 

15 either that officials are likely to discover his religious 

16 practice in the United States, see Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 

17 528 F.3d 135, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008), or that the persecution 

18 of similarly situated Christians “is so systemic or pervasive 

19 as to amount to a pattern or practice of persecution” in China, 

20 In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation 

21 omitted); see also Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 

22 (2d Cir. 2009). 
6 

1 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that Lin 

2 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on 

3 account of his practice of Christianity, it did not err in 

4 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because 

5 those claims were based on the same factual predicate. See 

6 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

12 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 

13 34(a)(2) and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 

14 FOR THE COURT: 

15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk