Yongshou 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YONGSHOU LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74987
Agency No. A095-301-590
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Yongshou Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-74987 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact,
including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The forensic expert’s testimony and report provide substantial evidence to
support the agency’s finding that Lin submitted a fraudulent fee receipt from his
alleged arrest for practicing Falun Gong. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745
(9th Cir. 2004) (fraudulent documents going to the heart of the claim may justify
an adverse credibility finding). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination based on the discrepancy between Lin’s
testimony and the Notice to Detainee’s Family Member or Work Unit he submitted
regarding the date of his alleged arrest. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.
2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an
adverse credibility finding). 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 to establish it is

-- 2 of 3 --

07-74987 3
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to China, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of
voluntary departure, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and Lin’s unexhausted
contention that his former attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel, see
Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --