UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2368

JIN JIE LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: June 9, 2011 Decided: June 28, 2011

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,

Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant 

Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jin Jie Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order from the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for 

asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the 

Convention Against Torture. Lin claims the adverse credibility 

finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that he 

met his burden of showing he was entitled to the requested 

relief. We deny the petition for review.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes 

the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a) (2006). The INA defines a refugee as a person 

unwilling or unable to return to his native country “because of 

persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). 

“Persecution involves the infliction or threat of death, 

torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of one 

of the enumerated grounds. . . .” Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, 

177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

An alien “bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility 

for asylum,” Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 

2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2011), and can establish 
3

refugee status based on past persecution in his native country 

on account of a protected ground. Id. § 1208.13(b)(1). “An 

applicant who demonstrates that he was the subject of past 

persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of 

persecution.” Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 

2004).

Without regard to past persecution, an alien can 

establish a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected 

ground. Id. The well-founded fear standard contains both a 

subjective and an objective component. The objective element 

requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a 

reasonable person in like circumstances to fear persecution. 

Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

2006). “The subjective component can be met through the 

presentation of candid, credible, and sincere testimony 

demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must 

have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be 

validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be 

mere irrational apprehension.” Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal 

quotations and alterations omitted).

To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, 

an alien must show “that it is more likely than not” that, if he 

was removed to his native country, his “life or freedom would be 

threatened” on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) 

(2006); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). 
4

Unlike asylum, withholding of removal is mandatory for anyone 

who makes this showing.

A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s testimony 

on credibility grounds must offer “specific, cogent reason[s]” 

for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). 

“Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent 

statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable 

testimony . . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th 

Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). This court accords 

broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings 

supported by substantial evidence. Camara, 378 F.3d at 367.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the law regarding 

credibility determinations for applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal filed after May 11, 2005, as is the case 

here. Such determinations are to be made based on the totality 

of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including “the 

demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant,” the 

plausibility and consistency of all of the applicant’s 

statements, “and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such 

statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, 

inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s 

claim.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006).

A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or 

withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial 

evidence on the record considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-
5

Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This court will reverse the 

Board only if “the evidence . . . presented was so compelling 

that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite 

fear of persecution.” Id. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 

316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “[t]he agency 

decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive 

unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of 

discretion.’” Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 

2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).

We have reviewed Lin’s challenges to the adverse 

credibility finding and conclude that the immigration judge’s 

finding is supported by substantial evidence. The immigration 

judge provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Lin was 

not credible. We also conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the finding that Lin failed to establish a well-founded 

fear of persecution or that it was more likely than not that he 

will be tortured when he returns to China.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED