United States v. 2020-04-13 | 17-73202 | XIANGLING LIN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIANGLING LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73202
Agency No. A209-218-244
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 23, 2020
**
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: W. FLETCHER, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Xiangling 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 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Lin claimed
FILED
APR 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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).

persecution on the ground that family planning authorities forced his wife to have
an abortion when she was pregnant with their third child, and that the same
authorities later threatened him with forced sterilization. In this petition, Lin
contests the adverse credibility determination underlying the denial of his claims
for relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Where, as here, “the BIA conducts its own review of the facts and law, we
review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts
the IJ’s opinion.” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019). The court
reviews those parts of the IJ’s decision on which the BIA relied. Id. We must
uphold an adverse credibility determination unless “any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Ali v.
Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 784 (9th Cir. 2005).
The BIA identified several apparent inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony
and written submissions. Among these were Lin’s alleged failure to mention on
his asylum application that he went into hiding after being threatened with
sterilization, that Lin failed to include the address of his alleged hiding place on his
asylum application, and that Lin’s “Certificate of Birth Control Operation” did not
suggest that his wife had an involuntary abortion. The BIA also noted Lin’s
2

inconsistent and evasive testimony about being in hiding with his cousin for nearly
a year in 2015.
Some of these findings are not supported by the record. For instance, Lin
did indeed state on his application that he went into hiding after threats from
family planning authorities, and Lin’s decision to provide his actual residential
address instead of that of his alleged temporary hiding place, is likely only a
“minor inconsistenc[y].” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011);
see Qiu, 944 F.3d at 844.
Nevertheless, as the BIA noted, Lin’s testimony concerning hiding with his
cousin was “evasive” and, as Lin concedes on appeal, “less than clear.” During the
time that Lin had allegedly been in hiding, he had nevertheless visited the U.S.
consulate in an attempt to obtain a visa, and had also obtained an identification
card from the local government. When the IJ asked Lin if he had been in hiding
when attempting to obtain these documents, Lin became evasive and stated that he
was hiding only part of the time. Pressed by the IJ, he stated that he had in fact
been in hiding. Lin did not adequately explain how, despite being in hiding, he
obtained his government-issued identification card. Further “reflect[ing] adversely
on the bona fides of his claim” was the fact that Lin failed to mention on his
asylum application that he had spent nearly a full year in hiding.
3

“To reverse [an adverse credibility] finding we must find that the evidence
not only supports [a contrary conclusion], but compels it.” Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphases and second alteration in original)
(quoting INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)). Given Lin’s
inconsistent and evasive testimony about being in hiding, we cannot say that the
record compels a contrary conclusion. Absent credible testimony, Lin is unable to
sustain his burden to demonstrate entitlement to asylum, withholding of removal,
or CAT protection. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION DENIED.
4