Jinlin Ling v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINLIN LING,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74334
Agency No. A089-720-940
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jinlin Ling, 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 removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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).
FILED
MAR 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-74334
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
including claims of due process violations, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014,
1017 (9th Cir. 2008), and 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, 1039-40 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Ling’s contentions that the IJ’s violated his due process rights
during his proceedings. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 921-22 (9th
Cir. 2006); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
establish a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the Ling’s inconsistent accounts as to the location of his business and
residence in China, and based on his omission from his statement of significant
incidents of harm he experienced in detention. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(adverse credibility determination supported under “the totality of circumstances”).
The record does not support Ling’s contention that he omitted incidents due to
embarrassment. See Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir.
2003) (claim was based solely on counsel’s argument, which “does not constitute
evidence”). Further, Ling’s explanations do not compel the contrary result. See
Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245. We reject Ling’s contentions that his documentary

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-74334
evidence overcomes his lack of credibility, see Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not rehabilitate testimony, or independently
support petitioner’s claim), and his contention that the BIA disregarded evidence.
Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Ling’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Ling’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
testimony found not credible, and Ling does not point to any other evidence in the
record that compels the conclusion it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to China. See Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 922-23 (although reports
confirmed torture occurred in petitioner’s country, record did not compel the
finding that petitioner would be tortured).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --