Guangfei Lin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUANGFEI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73697
Agency No. A088-307-801
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Guangfei Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ’) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-73697
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970
(9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and remand.
We do not consider the 2013 State Department report Lin references in his
opening brief because it is not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the
administrative record).
The agency found inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and documentary
evidence as to the circumstances surrounding his conversion to Christianity as well
as Lin’s medical treatment in China. Substantial evidence does not support the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on these findings. See Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ’s implausibility finding was
“speculative”). Substantial evidence also does not support the agency’s finding
that Lin initially could not recall documents he submitted into evidence. See id. at
1087 (petitioner’s quickly-corrected innocent mistake cannot form the basis of an
adverse credibility determination).
Finally, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s corroboration

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-73697
finding because the IJ did not address Lin’s explanation for his failure to provide
documents from his U.S. church. See Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1092-93 (9th
Cir. 2014) (IJ must consider and address all plausible and reasonable
explanations); see also Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 620 (9th Cir. 2004)
(agency erred in failing to consider petitioner’s plausible explanation for why a
witness was not available to corroborate claims).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and deem Lin credible, and remand
Lin’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --