Ji Tong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JI TONG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-75274
07-71699
Agency No. A096-360-121
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Ji Tong Lin, a native and citizen of China,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under the
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71699 2
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 06-75274), and the BIA’s denial of his
motion to reopen (No. 07-71699). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). In petition No. 06-
75274, we deny. In petition No. 07-71699, we deny in part and dismiss in part.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and the documentary
evidence with respect to both Lin’s claimed injuries, and his escort of three United
States citizens into China, were material and go to the heart of his claim. See Don
v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Li, 378 F.3d at 963
(concluding the IJ properly considered and rejected petitioner's explanation for
inconsistent testimony). 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 statements found to be not
credible, and he fails to point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to
China, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT. See id. at 1156-57.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71699 3
Lin’s contention that the IJ failed to consider all of the evidence is belied by
the record. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 921-22 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to
reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining Lin did not show prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) ( the BIA may deny a
motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief
sought); see also Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to the law).
We lack jurisdiction over Lin’s claim based upon fear of future economic
persecution for planning to have a future third child in China because this specific
issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
No. 06-75274: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 07-71699: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in
part.

-- 3 of 3 --