Bangshun Lin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BANGSHUN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72459
20-70871
Agency No. A215-821-922
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2022**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Bangshun Lin, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) summary dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order
denying his claims for relief from removal, and denial of his motion to reopen
* 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
JUL 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
those proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petitions.
1. The BIA summarily dismissed Lin’s appeal of the IJ’s order for failing to
comply with the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R § 1003.1(d)(2)(i). Specifically,
the BIA held that Lin failed to provide the grounds for his appeal and failed to file
a written brief despite indicating on his notice of appeal that he would do so. On
appeal to this court, Lin acknowledges the BIA’s summary dismissal but does not
contest the grounds on which the BIA relied to dismiss his case. Lin has thus
forfeited any challenge to the summary dismissal’s grounds by failing to
specifically and distinctly argue it in his opening brief. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen
because Lin did not establish prejudice resulting from his counsel’s failure to file a
brief on administrative appeal. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 824–
26 (9th Cir. 2003). Lin contends that he suffered prejudice because he was
deprived of the opportunity to challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Lin,
however, does not raise “arguments [that] might have been successful on appeal to
the BIA.” Id. at 826.
Specifically, Lin argues that the IJ improperly relied on statements from his
credible fear interview and that his documentary evidence bolstered his testimony.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
But because the interview had sufficient indicia of reliability, the IJ could properly
rely on it. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding
that there were sufficient indicia of reliability where “the interviews were
conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked,
and transcribed . . . with the aid of an interpreter”). And Lin’s allegations of
mistranslation and lack of comprehension during the interview are speculative in
the absence of any supporting evidence.1 The record also does not compel a
finding that Lin’s documentary evidence rehabilitated his incredible testimony in
light of the wide-ranging inconsistencies and omissions the IJ identified, and Lin
does not contend that the documentary evidence alone is sufficient to support his
claims in the absence of credible testimony. Cf. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791–92 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 That Lin’s counsel disconnected during the telephonic interview does not render
the transcript unreliable.

-- 3 of 3 --