Ming Zhen Lin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MING ZHEN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73030
Agency No. A212-980-668
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District
Judge.
Ming Zhen Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an
* 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 Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 7 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge (“IJ”) of his application for asylum.1 We review the agency’s
“legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.”
Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)
(citations omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The record adequately supports the agency’s conclusion that Lin’s
testimony regarding his trip to Japan was implausible, given that Lin was unable to
recall any details about the voyage. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152–
53 (9th Cir. 1999) (concluding that vague and implausible testimony supported
adverse credibility determination). In addition, the agency permissibly relied upon
inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and his corroborating documents. Manes
v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Lin’s description of
the injuries he suffered at the hands of the police is contradicted by his medical
treatment records, and his testimony that his wife is not a Christian is contradicted
by her letter.
1 Lin’s opening brief does not address the agency’s denial of his applications
for withholding and protection under CAT, thus waiving any challenge to those
applications. Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In the absence of credible testimony, Lin failed to establish that he is eligible
for asylum. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --