Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1

43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is

automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney

General Mark R. Filip as respondent in this case.

08-6099-ag

Lin v. Holder

BIA

Bukszpan, IJ

A 097 658 304

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS

FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1

AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A

LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:

“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER

TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED

BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE

ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE

DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

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

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

4 New York, on the 11 day of December, two thousand nine. th

5

6 PRESENT:

7 ROBERT D. SACK,

8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _______________________________________

12

13 YUN MING LIN,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 v. 08-6099-ag

17 NAC

18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1

19 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

20 Respondent.

21 ______________________________________
2

1 FOR PETITIONER: Lewis Hu, New York, NY.

2

3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

4 General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant

5 Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer,

6 Attorney, Office of Immigration

7 Litigation, Civil Division, United

8 States Department of Justice,

9 Washington, DC.

10

11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

14 is DENIED.

15 Petitioner Yun Ming Lin, a native and citizen of China,

16 seeks review of the November 17, 2008 order of the BIA

17 affirming the February 15, 2007 decision of Immigration

18 Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan denying his application

19 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

20 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yun Ming Lin, No.

21 A 097 658 304 (B.I.A. Nov. 17, 2008), aff’g No. A 097 658

22 304 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 15, 2007). We assume the

23 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

24 procedural history of this case.

25 When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and

26 supplements the IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the

27 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen

28 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review
3

1 the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility

2 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. 

3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519

4 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of

5 law and the application of law to undisputed fact. 

6 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).

7 Lin argues in his brief that the IJ engaged in

8 “improper speculation and conjecture” by failing to give

9 “specific, cogent reasons” for her adverse credibility

10 determination. Contrary to Lin’s argument, the IJ based her

11 adverse credibility determination on Lin’s “highly

12 implausible” testimony. Specifically, the IJ found

13 implausible Lin’s testimony that: (1) he did not practice

14 Falun Gong because he was too busy with school and work, but

15 still had time to pass out flyers and encourage others to

16 practice Falun Gong, even though it was illegal to do so;

17 and (2) he participated in a Falun Gong demonstration in New

18 York but did not know where the demonstration was held. In

19 making a finding that an applicant’s testimony is inherently

20 implausible, an IJ is not required to “explain in precise

21 detail what made each identified act implausible.” See

22 Wensheng Yan v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2007). 
4

1 Rather, where “the reasons for [the IJ’s] incredulity are

2 evident,” the implausibility finding is supported by

3 substantial evidence. Id. Because the IJ provided cogent

4 reasons for her implausibility finding, she met this

5 standard. We have upheld similar implausibility findings. 

6 See, e.g., Ying Li v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

7 Servs., 529 F.3d 79, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2008). 

8 Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse

9 credibility determination, the IJ properly denied Lin’s

10 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

11 relief. The persuasiveness of the only evidence that Lin

12 would be persecuted or tortured depended on his credibility. 

13 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534

14 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d

15 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the

18 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.

19

20 FOR THE COURT: 

21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

22

23

24 By:___________________________