NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHU

- YEN LIN, AKA Shu Yen Chuang

- Lin, AKA Shuyen Deglow, AKA Shu Yan Lin, AKA Suyan Lin, AKA Lin Su

- Yan,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70457 Agency No. A075

- 284

- 745

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 13, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Shu

- Yen Lin petitions for review of two decisions of the B oard of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s finding of removability, denied her application for a waiver o f inadmissib ility , and denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

. W e deny her petition for review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAR 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL SPage 2 of 5

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ ’s conclusion that the government demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Lin had procured a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact,” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which rendered her removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). Lin could qualify for her visa only if

, as relevant here, she had been employed in a managerial capacity for at least one year in Taiwan

. Id. § 1153(b)(1)(C). The petition filed on her behalf by her putative new employer represented that Lin had been employed for several years as an accounting manager at Win Win Advertising Co. T he IJ found this material fact false , and that finding is supported by substantia l evidence

. For example, Lin’s brother ( the vice president of Win Win) admitted during his criminal trial that he “falsely documented” Lin as a manager of Win Win for U.S. immigration purposes

. The record also permitted the IJ to draw the inference “that the misrepresentation was deliberate and voluntary”

— in other words, done at Lin’s behest or with her knowledge. Forbes v. INS , 48 F.3d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1995). Lin contends that the Taiwanese court and tax records relied on by the government were inadmi ssible hearsay and not properly authenticated. The IJ may consider “probative” hearsay so long as its admission is “fundamentally fair.”
Cunanan v. INS , 856 F.2d 1373, 137 4 (9th Cir. 1988). The Taiwanese courts’ adjudication of the very issue before the IJ

— whether Lin worked in a managerial capacity for Win Win

— is undoubtedly probative, and Lin was “allowed toPage 3 of 5

examine , ” and “given ample time to produce substantial evidence to rebut , ” the court and tax records

. Angov v. Lynch , 788 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2015). Many of t he court records were authenticated by an official seal in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1287.6(b), and all were accompanied by “some sort of proof that the do cument is what it purports to be

. ” Padilla

- Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. While Agent Sacramento’s testimony likely did not suffice to authenticate the tax records, their contents were corroborat ed by the findings of a Taiwanese court

. In sum, t he court and tax records were “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A).
2. Our review of the BIA’s den ial of a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) is limited to “constitutional claims [ and ] questions of law

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) (B)(ii), (a)(2) ( D) ; see San Pedro v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1156,
1157

– 58 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, t he BIA applied the governing legal standard from Matter of Tijam , 22 I. & N. Dec. 408 (BIA 1998) , and consider ed each relevant factor

. See Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829 , 834 (9th Cir. 2011). We lack jurisdiction to review Lin’s contention that the BIA did not sufficiently discuss her equities , which is “inherentl y intertwined” with the B oard ’s “assessment of the facts.” Mendez

- Castro v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Contrary to Lin’s contention, c onsideration of her outstanding Taiwanese arrest warrant wasPage 4 of 5

not legal error because 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) “imposes no limitations on the factors that the Attorney General [or the BIA] may consider in determining who, among the class of eligible aliens, should be granted relief.” INS v. Yueh

- Shaio Yang , 519 U.S. 26, 30 (1996).
3. Lin’s applica tion for asylum was denied on the ground that she failed to prove a well

- founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). Considering the totality of the circumstances , the BIA’s adverse credibility finding

was supported by substantial e vidence , includ ing Lin’s use of a fraudulent Philippines passport and her lawyer’s submission of a false sale document for a Miami home

. See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Even if the IJ’s 2015 credibility finding was insufficie ntly clear under our case law, the
BIA made an explicit finding

. Cf. Ming Dai v. Sessions , 884 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2018). Because “[w]e have long distinguished persecution from prosecution,” Li v. Holder , 559 F.3d 1096, 1108 (9th Cir. 2009), Lin bore the burden of establishing a reasonable probability that some aspect of her potential prosecution in Taiwan would rise to the level of persecution. The record does not compel acceptance of
any of Lin’s theor ies. First, t he IJ could reasonably find that Taiwanese officials have a legitimate , non - pretextual desire to investigate Lin’s involvement in bribery and document fraud. See Dinu v. Ashcroft , 372 F.3d 1041, 1044

– 45 (9th Cir.Page 5 of 5

2004). Second, w hile the re cord reflects concerns with the independence of the Taiwanese judiciary, the country

- conditions report reinforces the BIA ’s conclusion that Lin failed to show a reasonable probability that she will receive an unfair trial

. S ee Kazlauskas v. INS , 46 F.3d 902 , 906 (9th Cir. 1995). Third , t he IJ permissibly relied on the country

- conditions report ’s assessment of the general treatment of prisoners, as opposed to news articles regarding the former president of Taiwan, to find that Lin had not demonstrate d a reasonable probability of mistreatment in prison

. For these same reasons, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lin is ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208. 16(b)(2), (c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .