Ji Xian Lin v. U.S. Attorney General, 686 F. App'x 734

Ji Xian Lin, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2007 and conceded removability in 2009.
In May 2012 Lin applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution in China for practicing Falun Gong (which he said he began in December 2011).
At the removal hearing the IJ found Lin not credible based on internal inconsistencies in his testimony and discrepancies with his asylum application; IJ also noted lack of corroboration and denied asylum and withholding.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and held that the remaining evidence (photos, wife’s testimony, country conditions) did not independently satisfy Lin’s burden.
Lin appealed, arguing the credibility adverse finding was unsupported or premised on minor inconsistencies; the Eleventh Circuit reviews BIA factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard and legal issues de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence	Lin: inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine his claim	Government: inconsistencies and omissions (demo dates, practice location, friend’s story, omission of child) undermined credibility and were properly considered	Court: Affirmed — BIA gave specific, cogent reasons; record supports adverse credibility finding
Whether other evidence independently established asylum eligibility despite adverse credibility finding	Lin: photos, wife’s testimony, and country condition reports corroborate his claim	Government: that evidence did not independently meet the burden once credibility was rejected	Court: Affirmed — other evidence insufficient to establish asylum on its own
Whether errors required reversing factual findings under substantial-evidence standard	Lin: BIA’s reasons do not compel reversal	Government: record supports BIA under deferential review	Court: Denied — reversal not compelled; substantial evidence supports denial
Whether failure to obtain asylum necessarily precludes withholding of removal	Lin: argued for withholding after asylum denial	Government: withholding has a higher burden and cannot be met if asylum fails	Court: Affirmed — failure to show asylum means withholding standard also unmet

Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (standards for reviewing BIA decisions and substantial-evidence review)
Ruiz v. United States Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (reviewing record in light most favorable to agency)
Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (reversal requires record to compel it)
Forgue v. United States Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (burden to prove refugee status with specific, credible evidence)
D-Muhumed v. United States Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2004) (BIA must give specific, cogent reasons for adverse credibility findings)
Chen v. United States Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (credibility may be based on any inaccuracies without regard to whether they go to the heart of the claim)
Xia v. United States Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010) (minor inconsistencies can support adverse credibility determination)
Djonda v. United States Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (withholding of removal requires a higher showing than asylum)