Xuesong Lin v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUESONG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73360
Agency No. A200-250-958
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2019**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CALLAHAN and CHRISTEN, Circuit
Judges.
Xuesong Lin seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA)
denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. The facts are
FILED
JUN 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

familiar to the parties and are restated here only as necessary to resolve the issues
raised by the petition for review.
Where, as here, the BIA issues its own decision but relies in part on the
Immigration Judge’s opinion, we review both decisions. Flores-Lopez v. Holder,
685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). The agency’s findings of fact are reviewed
under a substantial evidence standard. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th
Cir. 2011) (per curiam). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may reverse
the BIA’s decision “only if the evidence ‘was so compelling that no reasonable
factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Cruz-Navarro v.
INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483–84 (1992)).
Because Lin’s asylum application was filed after May 11, 2005, the REAL
ID Act applies and the BIA was entitled to consider the totality of the
circumstances and all relevant factors in making a credibility determination. Jiang
v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). Lin proffered inconsistent testimony
as to how he obtained the certificate of ligation, and why the certificate indicated
that he had only two children. Furthermore, his wife’s letter did not corroborate
his statement that officials continued to come to his wife’s house looking for him.
Because there is little else in the record to support his claim of persecution based
2

-- 2 of 3 --

on a political opinion, Lin has not shown that the BIA was compelled to find that
he was credible or entitled to relief.
The petition is DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --