Opinion ID: 66102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lin’s Appeal to the BIA

Text: Lin appealed to the BIA and also moved for the case to be remanded to the IJ for further proceedings. In his notice of appeal, Lin alleged that the IJ erred in discrediting his testimony based on minor inconsistences and speculation. In his brief to the BIA, Lin contended that the IJ erred by rejecting all the documentary evidence without making a ruling as to the authenticity of specific documents. Id. at 11-12. With regard to the abortion certificate, Lin claimed that the IJ should not have rejected it as he had adequately explained that the reference to a midterm abortion was a clerical error that the hospital refused to correct. Id. at 12. Lin also alleged that he had established eligibility for asylum relief based on past persecution by providing extensive documentary evidence and detailed personal testimony. He also claimed that he had established a well-founded fear of future persecution, noting that he provided evidence that foreign-born children to Chinese nationals were treated as Chinese citizens and that there was an official 11 policy of forced sterilization in Fujian Province for those returning to China who have more than one child. Id. at 13-14. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. The BIA noted that the IJ found a series of reasons to be suspicious of Lin’s claim of persecution. Id. at 2-3. The BIA found that while no single reason would lead to a conclusion that Lin’s story was untrue, the “accumulated effect” of the issues led to a conclusion that Lin failed to meet his burden of proof. Id. at 2. The BIA discounted Lin’s argument that the IJ improperly rejected the documentary evidence, finding that the IJ’s decision was proper considering the record as a whole. The BIA found that “[i]nasmuch as the applicant did not credibly testify,” there was no basis to overturn the IJ’s decision. Id. The BIA also rejected Lin’s motion to remand, finding that the factors for granting remand did not warrant a granting of the motion in this case. Lin makes three arguments in support of his appeal. First, the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Second, the IJ improperly rejected the bulk of Lin’s documentary evidence. Third, the IJ erred in denying Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. We address each argument in turn. 12