LIN v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-02No. No. 15-70705

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. The court affirmed the agency's adverse credibility finding and its resulting denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Hui Lin, a Chinese national, sought review of immigration proceedings in which he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals had upheld an immigration judge's denial of all three forms of relief. On review, the court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's determination that Lin's testimony lacked credibility based on significant inconsistencies between his oral statements and written declaration, as well as internal contradictions within his testimony itself regarding key facts.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Credibility of applicant's testimony under REAL ID Act standards
Whether inconsistencies between testimony and declaration warrant adverse credibility determination
Whether asylum and withholding of removal claims can survive when testimony is found not credible
Whether Convention Against Torture claim has evidentiary support independent of credibility findings

Procedural posture

Lin petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Hui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

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

The agencys adverse credibility determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence, including the inconsistencies between Lins testimony and his declaration concerning the governments responses to his childrens births, and his internally inconsistent testimony concerning the factory that he claims was destroyed. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]o overturn an IJs adverse credibility determination, we must find that ‘the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.’ ” (second alteration in original) (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011))). In the absence of credible testimony, Lins claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of Lins claim for CAT protection because it was based on the same evidence that the agency found not credible, and Lin does not point to other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.