Ai Zhu Lin v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AI ZHU LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72486
Agency No. A093-389-988
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 9, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ai Zhu Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the
Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for substantial evidence. Shrestha v.
FILED
APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the agency’s discretionary holding that
Lin’s son will not face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Lin is
removed to China. De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 815-16 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lin waived any challenge to the agency’s holding that her asylum
application was untimely by not raising the issue in her brief. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
Contrary to Lin’s assertion, the adverse credibility finding is supported by
the record. The agency’s findings that Lin gave inconsistent, non-responsive
testimony that lacked detail regarding the alleged instances of past persecution are
supported by the record. The agency reasonably concluded that Lin would have
mentioned her “most serious allegation of mistreatment,” a forced abortion without
anesthesia, in her first application. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir.
2004). The record does not compel a contrary conclusion that Lin was credible.
Nor does any other evidence compel the conclusion that Lin more likely than not
will be persecuted or tortured if returned to China. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1039,
1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2

-- 2 of 2 --