Court Opinion

ID: 9410293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 19:00:58.621884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:56.599197
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           JUL 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUI LIN,                                        No. 21-985
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A209-384-137
 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before: NGUYEN, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Gui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing

his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064

      *
            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).
(9th Cir. 2020). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount

them here. We deny the petition.

      1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. This case is governed by the REAL ID Act, which dictates that

“an adverse credibility determination must be made after considering the totality

of circumstances, and all relevant factors.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Relevant

factors include any “falsehoods” and “the consistency between . . . written and

oral statements.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

      To determine that Lin was not credible, the agency relied on (1) Lin’s

admission that he presented false employment and marriage information to U.S.

officials in hopes of obtaining a visa; (2) an inconsistency between Lin’s

credible fear interview, written application materials, and merits hearing

testimony regarding the date of his arrest by Chinese police; and (3) an

inconsistency between Lin’s testimony and his sister’s testimony regarding

whether he had previously spoken to her about his asylum claim.

      2. In the absence of credible testimony, Lin failed to establish his

eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Rodriguez-Ramirez, 11

F.4th 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Contrary to Lin’s contention, his

documentary evidence, such as the arrest certificate and fine receipt, is

insufficient to independently establish his claims.

      3. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT

                                        2                                    21-985
protection. The record does not compel the conclusion that Lin established that,

independent of his non-credible testimony, he would more likely than not be

tortured by or with the acquiescence of a public official if removed to China,

even considering country conditions. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49

(“[W]hen the petitioner’s ‘testimony [is] found not credible, to reverse the

BIA’s decision [denying CAT protection,] we would have to find that the

reports alone compelled the conclusion that [the petitioner] is more likely than

not to be tortured.’” (citation omitted)).

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

      PETITION DENIED.

                                             3                                 21-985