19

- 673
L in v. Garland
BIA Poczter, IJ
A 208 928 272 

### 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.** 

**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 9**  **th da**  **y of July,**  **two thousand twenty** 

**- one** 

**.** 4
5
**PRESENT:** 6 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 7 **JOSEPH F. BIANCO,** 8 **Circuit Judges**
**,** 9 **NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS,** 10 **District Judge**

**.** ***** 11

**_____________________________________** 12
13
**LIN HANG BIN ,**  **AKA HANGBIN LIN,** 14
**Petitioner**
**,** 15
16

**v. 19** 

**- 673**  17
18
**MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19
**STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22
23

* Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis , of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York , sitting by designation.2 1
**FOR PETITIONER :**  Zhen Liang Li, Esq., New York, NY

. 2
3
**FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General ; Derek C. Julius , 5 Assistant Director; Bernard A. 6 Joseph , Senior Litigation Counsel , 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, 8 United States Department of 9 Justice, Washington, D C. 10

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11

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

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 13

is DENIED

. 14

Petitioner Lin Hang Bin , a native and citizen of the 15

People’s Republic of China , seeks review of a 2019 decision 16

of the BIA affirming a 2017 decision of the Immigration Judge 17

(“IJ”) , which den ied asylum, withholding of removal, and 18

relief under the Convent ion Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re 19

Lin Hang Bin , No. A 208 928 272 (B.I.A. Feb. 21, 2019 ), aff’g 20

No. A 208 928 272 (Immig r . Ct. N.Y. C. Nov. 22, 2017 ). We 21

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 22

procedural history , to which we refer only as necessary to 23

explain our decision to deny the petition

. 24

We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 25

“for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 263 Homeland Sec

. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). In denying 1

asylum, the IJ concluded that Lin did not carry his burden of 2

proof because his testimony was not credible and he did not 3

otherwise proffer sufficient evidence. See 8 U.S.C. 4

§ 1158 (b)(1)(B) (ii) ( “ In determining whether the applicant 5

has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh 6

the credible testimony along with other evidence of 7

record. ”). L in challenges in this petition only th e adverse 8

credibility determination. See Pet. Br. at 6. 9

We review this determination for substantial evidence , 10

“ which requires that [ a determination ] be supported by 11

reasonable, substantial and probative evidence in the record 12

when considered as a whole .” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 13

F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018 ) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. 14

“W e defer to an IJ's credibility determination unless, from 15

the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no 16

reasonable fact

- finder could make such an adverse credibility 17

ruling

. ” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations 18

omitted) ; see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) ( An IJ’s “ findings of 19

fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 20

be compelled to conclude to the contrary .”). 21

A n IJ may base an adverse credibility determination on 224 the “the totality of the circumstances” and “all relevant 1

factors

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(iii)

. The y include: 2

. . . the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of 3 the applicant or witness, the inherent 4 plausibility o f the applicant’s or witness’s 5 account, the consistency between the applicant’s 6
or witness’s written and oral statements

. . . , 7 the internal consistency of each such statement, 8 the consistency of such statements with other 9
evidence of record (including the reports of the 10 Department of State on country conditions) , and 11 any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, 12 without regard to whether an inconsistency, 13 inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the 14 applicant’s claim, or any other r elevant factor. 15
16
Id. “E ven where the agency relies on discrepancies or 17

lacunae that, if taken separately, concern matters collateral 18

or ancillary to the claim, the cumulative effect may 19

nevertheless be deemed consequential ” to adverse credibility. 20

Hong F ei Gao , 891 F.3d at 77 (internal quotation marks 21

omitted)

. 22

We deny the petition for review because the IJ’s adverse 23

credibility determination was reasonabl e and supported by the 24

record

. See id. at 76; 8 U.S.C. § § 1252(b)(4)(B)

. Among 25

other things, the IJ relied on discrepancies in Lin’s account 26

of his Christian practice in China, the sole basis for his 27

asylum claim. See 8 U .S.C. § 1158 (b)(1)(B)(i) ( providing 28

that a pplicants may be granted asylum if “ [their] religion

. 295 . . was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting 1

the applicant [s]”). In Lin’s written statement, he described 2

“contact [ing] the [Christian] church for the first time” 3

“[i]n February 2015.” Cert. Admin. R. (“CAR”) at 191. At 4

that time, as Lin wrote, hi s friend Lin Jianping (“Jianping”) 5

“led” him to an “underground” illegal church in China. CAR 6

at 191. On his third visit to th is church , seven months 7

later in September 2015, Lin was arrested in a police raid 8

and detained for fifteen days

. CAR at 191

- 92. 9

As Lin admitted at his asylum hearing, this written 10

statement contain s numerous discrepancies. Alt hough the 11

written statement implies that Lin’s three visits to the 12

illegal church were his primary experience of Christianity , 13

Lin testified that he had belonged to a “formal church ” in 14

China as well

. CAR at 44. As the IJ explained, citing a 15

2016 State Department r eport on China, “ m illions of Chinese 16

citizens

. . . practic[e] Christianity ” openly at such 17

churches

. CAR at 50. When the IJ asked Lin why he had not 18

disclosed t his experience before , Lin inaccurately testified 19

that he had. CAR at 44. 20

Furthermore, Lin admitted at the hearing that Jianping 21

did no t in fact introduce him to the illegal church, but to 226 th e formal church. CAR at 45; see Pet. Br. at 17

- 18 1

( conceding that Lin’s written account about Jianping’s role 2

was wrong). Lin instead testified that an individual named 3

Chen Hao brought him to the illegal church. CAR at 45. When 4

the IJ asked Lin why he had never mentioned Chen Hao before, 5

Lin testified inaccurately that he had referred to Chen Hao 6

namelessly as a “church brother” in hi s written statement. 7

CAR at 45. But the written statement attributes Lin’s 8

introduction to the illegal church only to Jianping

. CAR at 9

191. 10

The IJ reasonably determined that the shifting nature of 11

Lin’s account and his inaccurate testimony to explain the se 12

discrepanc ies undercut his credibility. Although Lin argues 13

the discrepancies concern small details, an IJ is entitled to 14

consider discrepancies “ without regard to whether [they] go [] 15

to the heart of the applicant’s claim .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 16

(b)(1)(B)(iii) . In any case, w e consider significant that 17

th e discrepancies pertain to the consequential, dangerous, 18

and presumably memo rable decision by Lin to join the illegal 19

church from the formal church

. In this context, the IJ 20

reasonably could find that such discrepancies reflect ed 21

adversely on Lin’s credibility, rather than were just 227 inadvertent or immaterial

. 1

We also credit the IJ’s direct observations of Lin’s 2

demeanor, candor, and responsiveness. See id

. The IJ 3

observed that Lin was “unable to provide detail” about the 4

critical events at issue . CAR at 45. Lin seemed to “use[] 5

the same terminology” to answer different questions as though 6

he “had committed to memory the general aspects of [his ] claim 7

but was not able to provide specific detail regarding the 8

story.” CAR at 45. 9

In light of the totality of this record, we conclude that 10

the IJ made a reasonable adverse credibility determination as 11

to Lin. We have reviewed his remaining arguments and find 12

in them no basis for granting the petition. 13

The petition for review is DENIED . All pending motions 14

and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 15

FOR THE COURT: 16
Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 17
Clerk of Court 18

19