Le Lin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LE LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73460
Agency No. A089-253-860
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Le Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
JUL 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Lin’s submission of a fraudulent national identification card, an
inconsistency between his testimony and his father’s letter regarding who had
possession of the original card, and an inconsistency between Lin’s testimony and
declaration regarding whether the police visited his home after his release from
detention. See id. at 1048 (the adverse credibility determination was reasonable
under the totality of the circumstances); Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974
(9th Cir. 2011) (explanation was plausible but did not compel acceptance). 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).
Finally, because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely
than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73460 2

-- 2 of 2 --