Jin Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 10-2368 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2368 JIN JIE LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: June 9, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 28, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Zheng, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jin Jie Lin, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal Convention Against Torture. and withholding under the Lin claims the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence and that he met his burden relief. of showing he was entitled to the requested We deny the petition for review. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. § 1158(a) (2006). The INA defines a refugee as 8 U.S.C. a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Persecution involves the 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2006). infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one s person or freedom, on account of one of the enumerated grounds. . . . 177 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171, quotation marks and citations omitted). An alien bear[s] the burden of proving eligibility for asylum, Naizgi v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 2006); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) 2 (2011), and can establish refugee status based on past persecution in his native country on account of a protected ground. applicant who persecution demonstrates is persecution. presumed that to Id. § 1208.13(b)(1). he have was a the subject of well-founded An past fear of Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 187 (4th Cir. 2004). Without establish ground. a regard to well-founded Id. past fear persecution, of persecution an on alien a can protected The well-founded fear standard contains both a subjective and an objective component. The objective element requires a showing of specific, concrete facts that would lead a reasonable person Gandziami-Mickhou 2006). The presentation in v. like Gonzales, subjective of circumstances candid, to fear 445 F.3d 351, component can be credible, and persecution. 353 met (4th Cir. through sincere the testimony demonstrating a genuine fear of persecution . . . . [It] must have some basis in the reality of the circumstances and be validated with specific, concrete facts . . . and it cannot be mere irrational apprehension. Li, 405 F.3d at 176 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an alien must show that it is more likely than not that, if he was removed to his native country, his life or freedom would be threatened on a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006); Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). 3 Unlike asylum, withholding of removal is mandatory for anyone who makes this showing. A trier of fact who rejects an applicant s testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent reason[s] for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). Examples of specific and cogent reasons include inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and inherently improbable Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th testimony . . . . Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings Camara, 378 F.3d at 367. supported by substantial evidence. The credibility REAL ID Act of determinations 2005 for amended the applications law for regarding asylum and withholding of removal filed after May 11, 2005, as is the case here. Such determinations are to be made based on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including the demeanor, candor, plausibility and or responsiveness consistency statements, and any statements, without of all inaccuracies regard to of or the of applicant, the applicant s falsehoods whether an the in such inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant s claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006). A determination regarding eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 4 INS v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). This court will reverse the Board only if the evidence . . . presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. 316, 325 n.14 (4th Id. at 483-84; see Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d Cir. 2002). Furthermore, [t]he agency decision that an alien is not eligible for asylum is conclusive unless manifestly discretion. contrary to the law and an abuse of Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)). We have reviewed Lin s challenges to the adverse credibility finding and conclude that the immigration judge s finding is supported by substantial evidence. The immigration judge provided specific and cogent reasons for finding Lin was not credible. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Lin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured when he returns to China. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 5

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.