Court Opinion

ID: 9400849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:01:26.946791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.453419
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             JUN 9 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIMIN LIN,                                      No. 21-1313
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A213-143-876
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted June 6, 2023 **
                               Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Qimin (aka Qiming) Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of

China, petitions for review of a final decision issued by the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his

application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

      *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      1.     Because Lin did not exhaust his challenge to the IJ’s denial of

withholding of removal or the IJ’s conclusion that he had not established a

well-founded fear of persecution, we deny these portions of the petition. See

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1114 (2023); Umana-Escobar v.

Garland, ––– F.4th –––, 2023 WL 3606117, at *5 (9th Cir. May 23, 2023).

      2.     “Where, as here, the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s order pursuant

to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), and expresses no

disagreement with the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s order as if it were the

BIA’s.” See Chuen Piu Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011). If

the “totality of the circumstances” provides substantial evidence for the adverse

credibility determination, we will uphold it. Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133,

1136–37 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc).

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Lin’s claims of past

persecution were not credible.       Lin filed a nonimmigrant visa application

containing false information regarding his employer. Such “falsehoods and

fabrications weigh particularly heavily in the adverse credibility inquiry.” 1

Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2021). Given that this was

his third attempt to obtain a U.S. visa, the IJ was not required to accept Lin’s

explanation that the travel agency had made the error. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th

1
  Because the falsity preceded any claim of harm, this is not a situation where
the use of fraudulent documents to escape persecution is not an adverse factor.
See, e.g., Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999).

                                         2
954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021).

      The IJ did not find credible Lin’s testimony that he flew from Kauai to

O‘ahu every week to attend church, noting it was implausible that he could afford

to spend upwards of $600 a month while working as a cook at a local restaurant

and still send remittances to his family. The IJ “reasonably applied common

sense” in so finding. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th Cir. 2021).

Similarly, it was not speculative for the IJ to find implausible that Lin did not

know anything about his sister’s religious persecution in China. As the record

reflects, Lin testified that his sister converted to Christianity and left China to

apply for asylum in the United States in August 2016, just months before Lin

testified he began practicing Christianity in early 2017. Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on these factors

alone. Li, 13 F.4th at 960.

      3.     Finally, the record supports the agency’s finding that the

independent evidence failed to corroborate Lin’s testimony or establish his

eligibility for asylum. Lin was unable to establish a chain of custody for the

proffered bail receipts, and as the agency noted, country conditions evidence

reflects that documentation from the Fujian province where Lin resided is subject

to widespread fabrication and fraud. Even if these documents were credited, they

only establish that Lin paid two administrative fines for attending an illegal

underground church. Accordingly, the record does not compel a contrary finding

by the agency.

                                        3
PETITION DENIED.

                   4