IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60068

Summary Calendar

JIANQING LIN,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A094 918 666

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jianqing Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, 

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying 

his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal 

under the Convention Against Torture and ordering that he be removed to 

China. Lin argues that the BIA and IJ clearly erred by finding that his 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60068 Document: 00513470298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
No. 15-60068

2

testimony was not credible. He maintains that the IJ initially found that his 

testimony was credible and that the BIA affirmed this finding. He contends 

that the inconsistency in his testimony regarding whether he or his father was 

considered an anti-government activist was a translation issue that he quickly 

corrected. According to Lin, his testimony concerning whether his father led 

the other villagers to hand over their land was not inconsistent. He contends 

that it easily could have been the case that his father told the government 

officials that the villagers would surrender their land to get Lin released and 

the villagers later decided not to surrender their land. Lin also challenges the 

IJ’s alternative ruling that he was not eligible for relief even if his testimony 

were credible.

When considering a petition for review, we have the authority to review 

only the BIA’s decision, not the IJ’s decision, unless the IJ’s decision has some 

impact on the BIA’s decision. Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 

1997). In this case, we may review the IJ’s ruling as well as the BIA’s decision 

regarding Lin’s credibility because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s ruling in this 

respect. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). We cannot, 

however, consider the IJ’s alternative ruling that Lin was not entitled to relief 

even if his testimony were credible because the BIA did not consider it. See 

Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 584 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011).

An immigration court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial 

evidence. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We may not 

reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 537. 

It is the factfinder’s duty to make determinations based on the credibility of 

witnesses, and we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the BIA or IJ 

with respect to factual findings based on credibility determinations. Chun v. 

 Case: 15-60068 Document: 00513470298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
No. 15-60068

3

INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). However, an adverse credibility 

determination still “must be supported by specific and cogent reasons derived 

from the record.” Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005).

Contrary to Lin’s assertion, the BIA did not affirm the IJ’s initial finding 

that Lin’s testimony was credible. Instead, it simply noted this finding, 

vacated the IJ’s initial ruling on other grounds, and remanded the case to the 

IJ. 

The record belies Lin’s argument that the inconsistency in his testimony 

regarding whether he or his father would be considered an anti-government 

activist was due to a translation error. Lin’s counsel, like Lin, spoke Mandarin, 

and when Lin’s counsel believed that there was a translation error, he 

challenged the translation. However, when Lin testified that his father would 

be considered an anti-government activist, Lin’s counsel did not challenge the 

translation; instead he asked a follow-up question so that Lin could state that 

it was he, not his father, who would be considered an anti-government activist. 

Furthermore, translation issues at the asylum hearing cannot account for the 

fact that Lin stated in his credible fear interview that he would be considered 

an anti-government activist but stated in his asylum application that his 

father would be considered an anti-government activist. Additionally, Lin 

merely speculates that there was a translation error without providing any 

evidence showing that there was a translation error, and this is insufficient to 

undermine the adverse credibility determination. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 539.

The record also supports the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that Lin’s 

testimony regarding whether the villagers surrendered their land when Lin’s 

father did was inconsistent. Lin first testified that his father led the villagers 

to surrender their land in order to secure Lin’s release from detention. He later 

testified that, after he was released, he attempted to persuade the villagers not 

 Case: 15-60068 Document: 00513470298 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2016
No. 15-60068

4

to give up their land. On cross-examination, he stated that the other villagers 

did not give up their land at the same time that his father did. While Lin 

contends that there is an explanation for this apparent inconsistency, this posthoc rationalization is insufficient to overturn the credibility determination 

made by the IJ and BIA. See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538. 

The IJ and BIA also ruled that Lin’s testimony was not credible because 

he testified that he was wanted by the Chinese government but was allowed to 

leave China using his own passport while the State Department report on 

China indicated that those the Chinese government considered to be against 

the government were not allowed to travel freely. This finding is supported by 

the record. Lin does not challenge this finding.

The adverse credibility determination was “supported by specific and 

cogent reasons derived from the record.” Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. The totality 

of the circumstances does not compel a finding that Chen was credible, and 

accordingly we will not disturb the adverse credibility determination. See 

Wang, 569 F.3d at 537-39.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

 Case: 15-60068 Document: 00513470298 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/19/2016