Taifan Jin v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 15 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAIFAN JIN; YINGHUA YIN, No. 18-73422
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A098-445-266
A095-177-578
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District Judge.
Taifan Jin and Yinghua Yin, natives and citizens of China, seek review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an
*
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).
***
The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the
District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency’s adverse credibility determination as to Yin is supported by
substantial evidence because her asylum application and her testimony contained
material omissions and inconsistencies that went “to the heart” of her claim that
she was persecuted based on her Christian faith, including inconsistencies
regarding her 2001 arrest for participating in a house church. Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th
Cir. 2003)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination as to Jin because his asylum application and testimony were
inconsistent on the circumstances of his first arrest, which went “to the heart” of
his claim that Chinese authorities persecuted him for assisting North Korean
refugees. See id.; Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010); see also
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Jin fails to demonstrate
how “a better translation would have made a difference in the outcome of [his]
hearing.” See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation
omitted). Because the agency gave both Yin and Jin an opportunity to explain
these inconsistencies and found their explanations implausible, substantial
2
evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determinations. See Rizk, 629
F.3d at 1091. Absent Yin and Jin’s credible testimony, the remaining evidence in
the record is insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of
removal.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s decision to deny Yin and
Jin’s claims for CAT relief because their non-credible testimony and the country
conditions reports describing generalized human rights abuses in China do not
compel the conclusion that Yin and Jin are more likely than not to suffer torture if
removed to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Kasnecovic v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
812, 815 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION DENIED.
3