Summary Calendar YING LIN v. Michael Bmukasey, U Sattorney General

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-60099
Summary Calendar
YING LIN
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 709 794
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Ying Lin, a native and citizen of People’s Republic of China, has
filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Lin’s application, the BIA found
that Lin lacked credibility.
On a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review the factual findings
for substantial evidence. Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994). Under
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 5, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-60099
2
the substantial evidence standard, we will affirm the BIA’s decision unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. at 8. “The applicant has the burden
of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could
reach a contrary conclusion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.
2006).
The decision of the BIA to reject Lin’s testimony as incredible is based on
a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore is supported by
substantial evidence. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). As the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion, Lin’s asylum claim fails. See
Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2006). The adverse credibility
determination also defeats Lin’s withholding of removal and CAT claims. See
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899,
907 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Lin’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --