NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHAOFANG LIN, No. 15-71841 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-541-129 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,*** District Judge. Chaofang Lin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). *** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lin, a native and citizen of China, contests the adverse credibility determination made by the IJ and upheld by the BIA. He also challenges the denial of his application for CAT protection. Lin filed his application after 2005, and therefore the REAL ID Act applies. See REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, §§ 101(a)(3), 101(d)(2), 119 Stat. 302 (May 11, 2005). We review “factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2019). Under this “standard, ‘administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). “Where, as here, the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based decision for clear error and ‘relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons’ but ‘did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,’ we ‘. . . review . . . the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.’” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)). “[W]e do not review those parts of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that the BIA did not identify as ‘most significant’ and did not otherwise mention.” Id. (quoting Tekle, 533 F.3d at 1051). 2 1. In finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA cited with approval several of the IJ’s findings: Lin’s failure to mention during his hearing testimony—as he had in his asylum application—that police shoved his head against a wall during his detention; inconsistencies regarding dates; contradictory evidence as to whether Lin’s wife was still in hiding; and Lin’s inability to explain why he chose to spend 460,000 RMB to be smuggled into the United States to avoid paying a 30,000 RMB fine in China, which he claimed he could not afford. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals