21

- 6082 Lin v. Garland BIA Schoppert , IJ A 208 163 563 

### 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 for the Second 1 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 6 t h da y of S e p t e m b e r , two thousand 3 twenty

- t hree

. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 YING LIN , 13 Petitioner , 14 15

v. 21

- 6082 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent

. 20

_____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER : Gerald Karikari , Esq., New York, NY. 232 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant Attorney 1 General ; Melissa Neiman

- Kelting , Assistant 2 Director; Allison Frayer , Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, Washington, 5 D C. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 7
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 8
DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Ying Lin , a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China , 10

seeks review of a January 21, 2021 , decision of the BIA affirming a n August 21, 11

2018 , decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, 12
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13
(“CAT”)

. In re Ying Lin , No. A 208 163 563 (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2021 ), aff’g No. A 208 14

163 563 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 21, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity 15
with the underlying facts and procedural histo ry. 16

We have review ed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 17
completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 18
2006). We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination “under the 19

substantial evidence standard.” Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions , 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 20
2018) . “[T] he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 213 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary

. ” 8 U.S.C. 1
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). 2
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, 3 a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, 4 candor, or responsiveness of the applicant . . . , the inherent 5 plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account, th e consistency between the 6 applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made 7 and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances 8 under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of 9 each such statement, the consi stency of such statements with other 10 evidence of record . . . , and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such 11 statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, 12 or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim , or any other 13 relevant fa ctor

. 14 15 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “ We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 16
unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

17
finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 18
534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2008); accord Hong Fei Gao , 891 F.3d at 76. We conclude 19
that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin was not 20
credible as to her alleged past harm

— the village chief’s attempt to force her to 21
marry his so n

— or as to her fear of religious persecution based on her practice of 22
Christianity in the United States. 23

We give “particular deference ” to the IJ’s demeanor finding because the IJ 24
is “in the best position to evaluate whether apparent problems in the .

. . testimony 254 suggest a lack of credibility or, rather, can be attributed to an innocent cause such 1
as difficulty understanding the question.” Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 453 F.3d 2
99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Such deference finds 3
further support here where the “ observations about an applicant ’ s demeanor

. . . 4
are supported by specific examples of inconsistent testimony.” Id

. For example, 5
the demeanor finding is linked t o Lin’s fluct uating statements about whether she 6
was a member of a church in Flushing, her lack of responsiveness and inconsistent 7
statements about when she joined the church, the lack of clarity in her explanations 8
about spreading the G ospel and why she would spread t he G ospel to people in 9
China who were already Christian, and her lack of responsiveness when asked to 10
explain her statement that the police gave her father warnings. 11
The agency also reasonably relied on inconsistencies among Lin’s written 12

and oral statem ents and documentary evidence , and the implausibility in her 13
testimony about the village chief

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). She was 14
inconsistent about when she became a Christian, testifying that she was 15
introduced to Jesus in detention after she arrived in the United States, but stating 16
in her earlier credible fear interview that she believed in Christianity and that her 17
family in China was Christian. The agency did not err in relying on the record of 185 the credible fear interview because it was co nducted through a Mandarin 1
interpreter, Lin did not allege difficulty understanding the questions, she told the 2
interviewing officer why she left China and why she was afraid to return, she said 3
she wanted to continue the interview without an attorney, and the interview was 4
memorialized in a typewritten document of questions asked and her responses

. 5

See Ming Zhang v. Holder , 585 F.3d 715, 725 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing “indicia of 6
reliability”)

. The IJ also reasonably deemed it implausible that Lin did not know 7
the name of the village chief and his son given that she knew the individual was 8
the village chief, she testified that he came to her family’s home to discuss the 9
marriage, and the alleged attempted forced marriage was why she fled China

. 10

See Siewe v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 16 8

– 6 9 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing that an IJ’s 11
inferences concerning credibility merit deference “so long as” they are “ tethered 12
to the evidentiary record”)

. 13
Taken together, the IJ’s demeanor findings, the inconsistenc ies, and the 14
implausible testimony provide substantial evidence for the agency’s adverse 15
credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Likai Gao v. Barr , 968 16
F.3d 137, 145 n.8 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[E]ven a single inconsistency might preclude a n 17

alie n from showing that an IJ was compelled to find him credible.”) ; Xiu Xia Lin , 186 534 F.3d at 167. 1
The adverse credibility determination is dispositive of asylum, withholding 2

of removal, and CAT relief because all three claims are based on the same factual 3
predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). Because Lin 4

was not credi ble about her Christian practice, we do not reach her claim that there 5
is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 6
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make 7
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 8
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED

. All pending 9
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 10

FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 12 Clerk of Court 13