FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT DECEMBER 14, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1122 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI AN o. A 96- 108- 762 HUA WANG LIN, Pet it io ne r,
ve rs us U. S. ATT ORNEY GENE RAL, Res po nd en t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Petition for Reviewfrom a Final O rder of the Bo ar d of

I m m igr at ionAppe al s

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(D ec em be r 14, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Hua W ang Lin (“ Lin”) , a Chinese citizen, petition s for re view of the denial by the Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s (“ BIA”) of Li n’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n.2

Previously , the B IAhad summ arily aff irm ed the Im

m igration Ju dge’ s (“ IJ”) denial of L in’ s a ppl ic at ion s f

or a sy lum , w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, and r el ie f unde r the U
. N
. Co nve nti on A ga ins t T ortur e (“ CA T ”)
. B ec au se the BI Adid not abuse it s dis cr et ion , w e de ny

the pe tit ion
. A ft er e nte ri ng the U nit ed

S ta te s il le ga lly

in 2003 , L in s ough t a sy lum dur ing
rem oval proceedings b efore an IJ in which L in claim ed past and pos sible future pe rs ec uti on i n C hin a. S pe ci fi ca lly , L in c la im s th at Ch ine se f

am ily planni ng of fic ia ls im po se d e xt en si ve pe na lt ie s o n h im form arrying to o you ng , hav in g t wo ch ildre n w ith out

gov er nm en t auth or iz at ion , and h ar bor ing apr eg nant w om anw ho hid from authorities to escape a forc ible abortion. Lin allegedly fac es substant ial out standi ng f

ine s f or the se a ct s. A cc or din g to L in, f ai lur e to p ay

the se f ine s w ill lik el y r es ult in im pr iso nm en t and p hy sic al abuse by Ch ine se of

fi ci al s. L in a lso al le ge s th at

his w if e unde rw en t f

or ci ble ste ri liz at ionin 1990 , w hic h f ac t he did not
m en tio n inhis ini tia l c re dib le -f ear int er vie wr ep ort. The I J determ ined that Lin failed to present cre dible testim ony to supp ort his appli cations for asy lum , w ithho lding of rem oval, and CA T r elief. T he IJ ide nti fi ed se ve ra l i nc onsi ste nc ie s and o m iss ion s inL in’ s te sti m ony a t the he ar ing , his a sy lum

appl ic at ion , and h is c re dib le -f ear int er vie w . F or

e xam ple , L in d id n ot
re port hi s w if

e’ s f or ci ble ste ri liz at iondur ing his c re dib le f ear int er vie w , a lth oughThroughout the proce ed i ng s, L in provided many inconsistent expl anations for this omi ssion: 1 (1) he was not aske d specific ally about hi s wife’ s sterilization; (2) he was asked about and r eporte d the forc ible sterilization, butthe translator did not relay

the m es s age t o the asylum officer ; (3) he c ou ld n ot r e me mbe r what que sti on s the of fi c e r as ke d; an d (4) he wa s me re ly “ ig no ra nt” of wh at to say 

### . 3 he wa s asked whether any m em ber of his fam ily

had been m istreated. T he IJ 1 concluded th at the m ore likely explanation was that Lin’ s wife had undergon e a volu ntary sterilization procedure. Af ter considering evidence that China had
re ce ntl y r el ax ed it s r igi d bi rth c ontro l po lic ie s, the I J do ubt ed L in’ s st or

y about the
w om anw ho s ough t hi s pr ote ct iona ft er she w as thr eate ne d w ithaf or ci ble ab ortio n. I n a ddi tio n, that L in l eg al ly le ft Ch ina usi ng a Ch ine se pa ssp ort and d id not appl y f or a sy lum dur ing his sub se que nt e xte nde d st ay s inboth G er m any and Barb ad os l ed

the I J to c onc lud e that L in d id n ot n ee d in te rn at ion al pr ote ct ion
. T he IJ , the re fo re , de te rm ine d th at L in w as not

c re dib le and tha t he c oul d no t e sta bli sh a
w e l l
- f o u n d e df e ar o f p e r s e c u t i o nt o d e mo n s tr a t e h i s c l a i ms f o r a s yl u m, withholdi ng of rem oval, and CA T r elief. The B IAinitiallyaff

irm ed the IJ’ s decision withou t opin ion. L in then filed a mot i o nt o re co n s i d er , wh i ch th e B IA d en i edaf t erco n cl u d i n g th at th e I J ’s adve rs e cr ed ibi lit

y de te rm inatio n w as not

c le ar ly e rr one ous. I n a ddi tio n to the
om issio ns and inco nsist encies in Lin’ s statem ents discov ered by the IJ, the BIA al so f ound that L in g av e inc onsi ste nt e xpl an at ion s f or his f ai lur e to r ep ort hi sL in’s petition for re view of the BIA’s i n i t i al summary aff irmance of the I J ’s dec ision was 2 untimely and wa s dismis sed for lack ofjurisdiction. Her e, we revie w only the BIA’s denial of L in’s mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ration. The re fo re , c ontr ary to L in’ s atte mpt s to c omb ine the a pp lic a ble sta nd ard s o f r e vie w, we re vie w the B IA’ s d e nia l of the mot ion fo r re c on sid e ra tio n o nly fo r a n a bu se of discretion rathe r than deter mining whether the B IA’s initial summary aff irmance was supporte d by substantial evidence
. 4 wife ’ s forcible sterilization in the initial credible-fear interview. T he BIAfurther poin ted out th at L in had prov ided incon sistent d ates for the ster ilization procedure
an dfo r t h e i m

p o s i t i o no f f

i n es . Ea ch o f t h es e f

i n d i n g s s up p o rt edth e I J ’s
co nc lu si on th atLin lac ke d c red ib il it y . O n a ppe al , L in arg ue s th at

the BI A ’ s a dve rs e cr ed ibi lity f ind ing is
unsu ppor te d by sub stanti al e vid en ce and i s th er ef or e anabuse of

dis cr et ion
. L in al so c la im s th e BI Avio la te d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts b y f ind ing inc onsi ste nc ie s in his state m en ts a

bout his w if e’ s st er ili zatio n th at

the I J di d no t m en tio n sp ec if ic al ly
an d by not a llo w ing L in a

suf fi ci en t op portun ity

to expla in the se inc onsi ste nc ie s. W e re vie wthe BI A ’ s de nia l of am oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n f

or an a buse of discretion. A ssa’ ad v. U .S . A tt’ y Ge n., 332 F.3d 1321 , 1340-41 (11th Cir. 2003 ). 2

“ T he BI Aabuse s it s di sc re tio n whe n it s de ci sio n pr ovi de s no r at ion al e xpl an at ion , ine xpl ic ab ly

de part s f ro m e sta bli she d po lic ie s, is de voi d of any r ea soni ng, or
co nt ai ns on ly summ ary orco nc lu so ry st at em en ts .” Aval os v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 2006 W L 256 7603 ( 11th C ir
. S ep t. 7, 200 6) ( ci ta tio n and i nte rn al quo ta tio ns
om itt ed ). T o pr ev ai l onadue pr oc es s c la im , an a lie n m ust de m onstrate that he5

w as de pr ive d of

due pr oc es s of

lawand tha t the a lle ge d e rr or s c au se d hi m subs tanti al pr ej udi ce . G onz al ez -O ro pe za v. U
. S. A tt’ y

G en . , 321 F
. 3d 1 331, 133 3 (11th Cir. 2003). T he BI A ’ s de nia l of

L in’ s m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n w as not

an a buse of d i s cr et i o nb ec au s e t h e B IA m ad e n o l eg al o r f ac tu al erro rs i naf

fi rmin g th e I J ’s de ci sio n. T he r ec or d do es sho wthat L in p ro vid ed inc onsi ste nt e xpl an at ion s f or h i s fa i l u re t o m en t i o nh i s wi fe ’s s t er i l i za t i o n , wh i ch s up p o rt s th e I J ’s determ ination that Lin likely wa s not bein g truthful in labeling the sterilization as fo rc ibl e rathe r than vo lun tary . L in a lso m iss ta te d th e da te of ste ri liz at iona s be ing
m uc h so one r af

te r the bir th o f his se co nd c hil d th anthe r ec or d r ef le ct s. T he se finding s of the BIA , a s well a s thos e m ade by the IJ, suppo rt the determ ination that Lin was n otcred ib le
. L in’ s c la im

that hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts w er e vio la te d be ca use he w as not gi ve n asu ffi ci en t o pp or tu ni ty to ex pl ai n t he se ad di ti on al di sc rep an ci es als o fa il s. T he I J gave L in f

ull opp ortun ity

to expla in the m er its of

his c la im s a s w el l a s hi s pa st s ta te m en ts - - es pe ci al ly tho se state m en ts a

bout his ini tia l f

ai lur e to m en tio n h i s wi fe ’s s t er i l i za t i o n . Th at th e B IA i d en t i fi edfu rt h eri n co n s i s t en ci es i nLi n ’s
explana tio ns d id n ot a ff

ec t hi s r igh t t o be he ar d onthe m er its of his r eque sts f

or
as y lum , w ith hol din g of

r em ova l, or

CA T r el ie f. D ue pr oc es s si m ply doe s no t6

require the BI A to provide Lin w ith conti nuou s oppo rtunities to corre ct inc onsi ste nc ie s inhis pa st s ta te m en ts unti l hi s st or y be co m es c onsi ste nt. PETI TI ON DENI ED.