13-3263 Lin v. Lynch BIA Hom, IJ A099 455 947 

### 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 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 17 th** **day of February, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges **.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **LUAN LIN,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **v. 13-3263** 16 **NAC** 17 18 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.** 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney** 26 **General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior** 27 **Litigation Counsel; Colette J.** 28 **Winston, Trial Attorney, Office of** 29**Immigration Litigation, Civil** 1 **Division, United States Department** 2 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Luan Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review 9 of an August 2, 2013 decision of the BIA affirming an 10 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) May 1, 2012, denial of his 11 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 12 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Luan 13 Lin , No. A099 455 947 (B.I.A. Aug. 2, 2013),aff’gNo. A099 14 455 947 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 1, 2012). We assume the 15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. 19 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 20 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 21 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 22 established. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);Yanqin Weng v. 23 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 24

2For applications such as Lin’s, governed by the REAL ID 1 Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of 2 the circumstances,” base a credibility finding on the 3 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements, 4 “without regard to whether” they go “to the heart of the 5 applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia 6 Lin v. Mukasey,534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) (per 7 curiam). We “defer therefore to an IJ’s credibility 8 determination unless, from the totality of the 9 circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder 10 could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia 11 Lin , 534 F.3d at 167. Here, the IJ reasonably based the 12 adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies 13 regarding the names of Lin’s parents and the lack of 14 reliable corroborating evidence of Lin’s identity. 15 First, the inconsistencies are supported by the record. 16 The 2011 birth certificate and household registration 17 booklet Lin submitted with his asylum application contradict 18 a copy of a visa petition and 2003 birth certificate the 19 Government submitted. They reflect different names for both 20 Lin’s father and mother. Lin asserted that he was unaware 21 of the visa petition, is not related to the petitioner, and 22

3is ignorant of the source of the 2003 certificate. The IJ 1 reasonably rejected Lin’s explanation because the petition 2 contained Lin’s personal information and photograph, and the 3 2003 birth certificate was issued by the Chinese government. 4 See Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2005) 5 (providing that the agency need not credit an applicant’s 6 explanations for inconsistent testimony unless those 7 explanations would compel a reasonable fact-finder to do 8 so)

. Accordingly, the IJ reasonably relied on the 9 inconsistencies among the birth certificates, visa petition, 10 and asylum application regarding the names of Lin’s parents. 11
See8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 12
166; Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 13 342 (2d Cir. 2006) ( the weight to be accorded to documentary 14 evidence lies largely within the agency’s discretion). 15 Lin submitted other corroborating evidence that he 16 practiced Christianity: a letter from a woman purporting to 17 be his mother that confirmed that she and Lin attended 18 church in China; and the testimony of his paternal uncle, 19 who testified to Lin’s church attendance in the United 20 States. However, the IJ reasonably gave minimal weight to 21 that evidence because it did not rehabilitate the 22

4inconsistencies regarding his identity. The letter did not 1 itself resolve the questions raised by the visa petition, 2 and Lin’s uncle knew only the nickname, not the official 3 name, of his sister-in-law, Lin’s mother. See Xiao Ji Chen , 4 471 F.3d at 341-42. Given that Lin’s identity was called 5 into question by inconsistencies in the documentary evidence 6 regarding the identity of his parents, and he failed to 7 provide reliable evidence corroborating his identity -- 8 i.e., that he was the person described in the letter or that 9 his witness was actually his uncle -- the totality of the 10 circumstances supports the agency’s adverse credibility 11 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 167; Yanqin 12 Weng, 562 F.3d at 513. The adverse credibility 13 determination in this case necessarily precludes success on 14 his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 15 relief, because the only evidence of a threat to Lin’s life 16 or freedom, or likelihood of torture, depended upon his 17 credibility. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 18 2006). 19 20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 21

DENIED. 22
FOR THE COURT: 23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 24 25 26

5