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

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QING LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73420
Agency No. A099-524-163
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Qing 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
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73420 2
governed by 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 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies regarding the nature of Lin’s claim and the
circumstances of his wife’s IUD insertion. See id. at 1045-48 (adverse credibility
determination was reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of
circumstances”); Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence regarding nature of
attack and injuries suffered supported an adverse credibility finding). Lin’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508
F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). 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).
Because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73420 3
than not that he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Lin’s claim that the IJ violated his due
process rights by refusing to rule on his counsel’s objection because Lin did not
exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --