Suhang Lin v. Sessions, 712 F. App'x 67

Petitioner Suhang Lin, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s July 27, 2015 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
The IJ found Lin not credible based on inconsistencies about his contact and living arrangements with his father, contradictions with his aunt’s testimony, and doubts about his religious practice and proselytizing.
Lin admitted at the hearing that he had made statements under oath in a prior asylum interview that conflicted with his hearing testimony about living with his father.
The IJ also relied on Lin’s demeanor (halting answers, perceived disingenuousness) and Lin’s failure to provide corroborating evidence (e.g., a letter from the aunt) to support the adverse credibility finding.
The Second Circuit reviewed the adverse credibility determination under the ‘‘substantial evidence’’ standard and denied the petition for review, concluding the totality of circumstances supported the IJ’s credibility ruling and that the credibility determination dispossessed Lin of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility determination	Lin argued the inconsistencies were explainable and prior interview notes were not properly in the record	Government argued inconsistencies, demeanor, and lack of corroboration justified disbelief	Court held substantial evidence supports the IJ/BIA adverse credibility finding
Reliance on prior asylum interview statements	Lin contended the BIA wrongly treated interview notes as record evidence	Government maintained Lin admitted those prior statements under oath and could not explain inconsistency	Held the IJ relied on Lin’s own admissions of prior inconsistent sworn statements, so reliance was proper
Weight of demeanor findings	Lin challenged the IJ’s characterization of his demeanor as disingenuous	Government argued IJ is best positioned to judge demeanor and gave specific examples	Court deferred to IJ’s demeanor findings as supported by examples and entitled to deference
Failure to corroborate religious practice	Lin argued lack of corroboration was not dispositive and offered explanations	Government emphasized absence of corroboration after testimony was undermined	Court held failure to corroborate further supported adverse credibility and was proper to consider

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA-modified IJ decisions)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act credibility review and deference to IJ credibility findings)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (applicant must show a reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit testimony)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (factfinder may draw inferences from direct and circumstantial evidence)
Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir.) (distinguishing minor isolated inconsistencies)
Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (support for demeanor findings when tied to specific inconsistent testimony)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir.) (absence of corroboration can prevent rehabilitation of discredited testimony)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (same factual predicate controls asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (U.S.) (courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
Zhou Yun Zhang v. U.S. INS, 386 F.3d 66 (2d Cir.) (deference to IJ’s credibility findings based on demeanor)
Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.) (overruling on other grounds noted in opinion)
Lianping Li v. Lynch, 839 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.) (remand futile standard)