Peng Lin v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PENG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70361
Agency No. A087-834-064
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Peng 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”). We have jurisdiction
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70361
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, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.
2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in Lin’s testimony as to the number of times Lin reported
to the police following his detention and the date Lin’s parents began practicing
Christianity, a negative demeanor finding, and Lin’s failure to provide reasonably
available corroborating evidence. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding
reasonable under the totality of the circumstances); see also Huang v. Holder, 744
F.3d 1149, 1153-55 (9th Cir. 2014) (giving deference to the IJ’s demeanor
assessment and citing the lack of corroborating evidence as a basis for the adverse
credibility determination). Lin’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Lin’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Lin’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and Lin does not point to any other evidence in the record that

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70361
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of China. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --