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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINPO LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72263
Agency No. A094-938-697
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jinpo 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
DEC 12 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 --

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, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on an inconsistency between Lin’s testimony and his written statement
regarding when he began attending a house church, and based on an inconsistency
between his testimony and his asylum application regarding his employment in
China. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of
circumstances). Lin’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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).
Further, because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that
it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72263 2

-- 2 of 2 --