JI LIN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-71225 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JI LIN, No. 13-71225 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-089-743 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2014** Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Ji Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). agency s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency s adverse credibility determination based on Lin s omission from his asylum application and declaration that the police urged fellow prisoners to beat him, and that the police made visits to his home after they released him from custody. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) ( Material alterations in the applicant s account of persecution are sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding. ). Lin s explanations for the omissions do not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. at 974. 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-71225

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.