XUEWU LIN V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 15-73566 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XUEWU LIN, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73566 Agency No. A089-982-091 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Xuewu Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 103940 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies and omissions in Lin’s testimony, inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony, his declaration, and passport, and lack of corroborating evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Lin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Lin did not present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish eligibility for relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to independently support claim). Thus, 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). We do not address Lin’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon 2 15-73566 by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Lin’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Lin does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-73566
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.
