Ming Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 11-1173 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1173 MING ZHONG LIN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 19, 2011 Decided: September 29, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Briana F. Isiminger, LAW OFFICES OF YU & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant United States Attorney, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robbin K. Blaya, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ming Zhong Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge s denial of his failed to applications for relief from removal. Lin establish challenges eligibility the for determination asylum. He that first agency s adverse credibility determination. of a determination denying eligibility he disputes the To obtain reversal for relief, an alien must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. (1992). INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. Lin thus fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Additionally, we uphold the agency s finding that Lin could not in any event demonstrate past persecution based on his wife s forced sterilization, or based on other resistance to China s coercive population control policy. Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir. 2010); 8 See U.S.C. ยง 1101(a)(42) (2006). Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lin cannot stringent meet removal. the more standard for withholding of Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 2 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. Lin s motion for a stay of removal and dispense We deny with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
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.
