Court Opinion

ID: 9374318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:44.012063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.519349
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YAN BING LIN,                                   No.    20-72132

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A209-761-921

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Yan Bing Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

      *
             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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on misrepresentations on his visa applications and implausible testimony

regarding protection in Mexico. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th

954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (false information on visa application supported adverse

credibility determination); Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 838 (9th Cir. 2021)

(implausible explanations supported adverse credibility determination). Lin’s

explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that

Lin’s documentary evidence did not independently establish eligibility for relief.

See Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (absent

credible testimony, petitioner failed to establish eligibility for relief). Thus, in the

absence of credible testimony, Lin’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)

(failure to satisfy lower asylum standard results in failure to satisfy withholding

standard).

                                            2                                   20-72132
      We do not address Lin’s contentions as to meriting a favorable exercise of

discretion with respect to his asylum claim because the BIA did not deny relief on

this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011)

(“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon

by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Lin’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency found not

credible, and Lin does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels

the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured in China. See

Farah, 348 F.3d at 1157.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                  20-72132