14-2424 

Lin v. Lynch 

BIA 

Cheng, IJ 

 A087 992 621

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. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

16th 4 day of July, two thousand fifteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

8 DENNY CHIN, 

9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 JIN PING LIN, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 14-2424 

17 NAC 

18 

19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

21 Respondent. 

22 _____________________________________ 

23 

24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 

28 Assistant Director; Kristen Giuffreda 

29 Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of

30 Immigration Litigation, United States 

31 Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
2 

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Jin Ping Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic 

6 of China, seeks review of a June 11, 2014, decision of the BIA 

7 affirming the December 6, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge 

8 (“IJ”), denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

9 removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture 

10 (“CAT”). In re Jin Ping Lin, No. A087 992 621 (B.I.A. June 11, 

11 2014), aff’g No. A087 992 621 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6, 

12 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

13 facts and procedural history in this case. 

14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 

15 decisions of both the IJ and the BIA “for the sake of 

16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 

17 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 

18 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 

19 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 

20 For asylum applications like Lin’s, governed by the REAL 

21 ID Act of 2005, the agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of 
3 

1 the circumstances,” base a credibility determination on 

2 inconsistencies in an asylum applicant’s statements and other 

3 record evidence “without regard to whether” the inconsistencies 

4 go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 

5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility 

6 determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, 

7 it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such” a 

8 ruling. Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008) 

9 (per curiam). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

10 adverse credibility determination. 

11 The agency relied on multiple inconsistencies in finding 

12 Lin not credible. For example, the agency reasonably 

13 considered inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and his 

14 credible fear interview regarding when he joined an underground 

15 church in China. See Ming Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 725 

16 (2d Cir. 2009). Lin testified on direct examination that he 

17 joined his underground church in 2007, but later testified that 

18 he joined the church in 2009. During his credible fear 

19 interview, he also stated that he joined in 2009. The agency 

20 was not required to credit his explanation for these 

21 discrepancies. See Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d 
4 

1 Cir. 2005). Moreover, Lin’s credible fear interview contained 

2 the required indicia of reliability because: (1) the interview 

3 record was typewritten in a question and answer format; (2) the 

4 interview was conducted through an interpreter; (3) the 

5 interviewer explained to Lin the purpose of the interview and 

6 the importance of providing full and accurate testimony; and 

7 (4) the interviewer asked questions that were designed to elicit 

8 a potential basis for asylum. See Ming Zhang, 585 F.3d at 

9 725-26. 

10 The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s initial failure 

11 to mention that he was his pastor’s “helper.” Xiu Xia Lin, 534 

12 F.3d at 166 n.3. As the IJ observed, this information was 

13 relevant because the Chinese government may have considered him 

14 a threat if he was more than just a member of his church. 

15 Moreover, a statement from Lin’s mother also failed to mention 

16 that he was his pastor’s helper. The agency was not required 

17 to credit his explanation for omitting this relevant 

18 information. 

19 The agency also reasonably relied on Lin’s initial failure 

20 to mention that his parents were leaders in his church and that 

21 they had been arrested prior to the 2009 incident. Despite 
5 

1 Lin’s detailed account of his religious upbringing and his 

2 parents’ arrest in 2009, he made no mention that they were ever 

3 leaders of the church or that they had previously been arrested. 

4 Moreover, in her statement, Lin’s mother described in detail 

5 how she and Lin’s father were arrested and beaten in 2009, but 

6 failed to mention any prior arrests or that she and Lin’s father 

7 were church leaders. Accordingly, Lin’s material 

8 inconsistencies and his failure to provide adequate 

9 explanations constitute substantial evidence for an adverse 

10 credibility determination. 

11 Having questioned Lin’s credibility, the agency did not err 

12 in finding that his corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate 

13 his incredible testimony. An applicant’s failure to 

14 corroborate testimony may bear on credibility, either because 

15 the absence of particular corroborating evidence is viewed as 

16 suspicious, or because the absence of corroboration in general 

17 makes an applicant unable to rehabilitate testimony that has 

18 already been called into question. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 

19 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Lin argues that the agency 

20 did not adequately consider evidence that he was issued a 

21 summons by police. However, this evidence does not 
6 

1 rehabilitate the discrepant testimony that forms the basis of 

2 the adverse credibility determination. 

3 Given the inconsistency and corroboration findings, 

4 substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

5 determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. The adverse 

6 credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, 

7 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, as the claims were based 

8 on the same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 

9 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 

16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

17 34.1(b).

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk