-
12-553 Lin v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A089 770 111 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 30th day of August, two thousand thirteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHANG BING LIN, AKA CHANG BIN LIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 12-553 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New 24 Jersey. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: W. Daniel Shieh, Trial Attorney, 27 Jacob A. Bashyrov, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, Civil 1 Division, for Stuart F. Delery, 2 Acting Assistant Attorney General 3 and Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Assistant 4 Director, United States Department 5 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Chang Bing Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s 12 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 19, 2012 order 13 of the BIA, affirming the June 23, 2010 decision of 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka, which denied his 15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chang 17 Bing Lin, No. A089 770 111 (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 2012), aff’g No. 18 A089 770 111 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 23, 2010). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history in this case. 21 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 22 the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432
23 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 24 review are well-established. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 25 Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 1 For asylum applications such as Lin’s, governed by the 2 REAL ID Act, the agency may, considering the totality of the 3 circumstances, base a credibility finding on an asylum 4 applicant’s demeanor, the plausibility of his account, and 5 inconsistencies in his statements, without regard to whether 6 they go “to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). We conclude that substantial evidence 8 supports the agency’s determination that Lin did not testify 9 credibly regarding his Falun Gong claim.1 10 In finding Lin not credible, the agency reasonably 11 relied on his failure to indicate during his credible fear 12 interview either that he practiced Falun Gong in China, or 13 that Chinese authorities targeted him on account of his 14 Falun Gong activities. See Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d 15162, 166-67 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (holding that 16 for purposes of analyzing a credibility determination, “[a]n 17 inconsistency and an omission are . . . functionally 18 equivalent”). The agency also reasonably relied on 19 discrepancies between: (1) Lin’s testimony and asylum 1 As Lin does not challenge the IJ’s determination that his family planning claim was precluded by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
494 F.3d 296(2d Cir. 2007), we do not address it. See Gui Yin Liu v. INS,
508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007). 3 1 application with regard to the length of time that he was in 2 hiding prior to his departure from China; and (2) Lin’s 3 testimony and both his asylum application and wife’s letter 4 with regard to the number of times that Chinese authorities 5 sought to arrest him for practicing Falun Gong. See
id.at 6 167 (“[A]n IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in 7 making an adverse credibility determination as long as the 8 ‘totality of the circumstances’ establishes that an asylum 9 applicant is not credible.”); see also Iouri v. Ashcroft, 10
487 F.3d 76, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 11 discrepancies between an applicant’s asylum application and 12 testimony may support an adverse credibility determination). 13 Lin failed to provide compelling explanations for these 14 discrepancies. See Majidi v. Gonzales,
430 F.3d 77, 80-81 15 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 Furthermore, the IJ reasonably found implausible Lin’s 17 assertion that he practiced Falun Gong in Flushing, Queens 18 two to three days per week while working full-time and 19 residing in New Jersey six days per week. See Wensheng Yan 20 v. Mukasey,
509 F.3d 63, 67 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that 21 where the IJ’s findings are “tethered to record evidence, 22 and there is nothing else in the record from which a firm 4 1 conviction of error could properly be derived,” we will not 2 disturb the inherent implausibility finding). Additionally, 3 we find no error in the IJ’s reliance, in part, on Lin’s 4 lack of knowledge of the Falun Gong exercises in light of 5 his assertion that he had regularly practiced Falun Gong in 6 the United States for two years. See Rizal v. Gonzales, 442
7 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir. 2006). 8 Finally, the IJ reasonably declined to afford 9 evidentiary weight to the photographs Lin submitted of his 10 Falun Gong practice, given that Lin failed to clarify the 11 identity of the photographer(s), admitted that two of the 12 photographs were taken near his attorney’s office solely for 13 litigation purposes, and the photographs depicted Lin 14 practicing alone, even though he testified that he practiced 15 with others. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales,
496 F.3d 268, 273 16 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that the agency may rely on a lack 17 of corroborative evidence where an applicant’s testimony is 18 not otherwise credible); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t 19 of Justice,
471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that 20 the weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence in 21 immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion 22 of the IJ). 23 5 1 Ultimately, because a reasonable fact-finder would not 2 be compelled to conclude to the contrary regarding the 3 agency’s inconsistency, implausibility, and lack of 4 corroboration findings, the agency’s adverse credibility 5 determination is supported by substantial evidence. 6 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 165-66. The agency’s denial of 7 Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 8 CAT relief was not in error as all three claims share the 9 same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 10 156 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal); Xue Hong Yang 11 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005) 12 (CAT). 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 17 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for 18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 24 6
Document Info
Docket Number: 12-553
Citation Numbers: 534 F. App'x 61
Judges: Ann, Chin, Christopher, Debra, Denny, Droney, Livingston
Filed Date: 8/30/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/7/2023