Tiantian Lin v. Lynch, 661 F. App'x 135

Petitioner Tiantian Lin, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief claiming persecution for attending an underground Christian church and an arrest in China.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding Lin not credible based on multiple inconsistencies between her hearing testimony, her asylum application, and the testimony of her witness.
Key discrepancies included omitted allegations in the written application (police beatings, a binder thrown at her head injuring her ear, and a bribe paid by her father) and contradictions about prior police raids and church attendance.
Lin offered explanations (poor writing, not thinking facts were necessary, mishearing questions) and submitted limited documentary evidence and letters from a pastor and a witness; the pastor was unavailable for cross-examination.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Lin petitioned for review in the Second Circuit, which reviewed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding as the final agency determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence	Lin argued omissions and inconsistencies were innocent (writing ability, perceived irrelevance, mishearing) and did not compel disbelief	Government argued the IJ reasonably relied on material inconsistencies between testimony and written application	Held: IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and upheld
Whether inconsistencies with witness testimony undermined Lin’s claim	Lin relied on witness Huizhen Liang to corroborate attendance and events	Government pointed to multiple contradictions between Liang’s and Lin’s testimony diminishing credibility	Held: IJ reasonably found witness testimony inconsistent and not credible
Whether Lin rehabilitated credibility with corroborating evidence	Lin submitted letters and a photograph to corroborate church attendance and arrest	Government noted absence of independent documentation, pastor unavailable, and submitted evidence failed to resolve inconsistencies	Held: Corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate credibility
Legal effect on asylum/withholding/CAT claims	Lin argued credibility errors tainted denial of all relief	Government maintained credibility ruling dispositive of all claims	Held: Adverse credibility dispositive; asylum, withholding, and CAT relief denied

Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard treating IJ decision as final agency determination in certain cases)
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (REAL ID Act credibility review and substantial-evidence deference)
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (burden to show that reasonable fact-finder would be compelled to credit testimony)
Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (materiality of discrepancies to asylum claims)
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration requirement and sufficiency)
Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (limits on documentary corroboration and cross-examination concerns)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (credibility ruling can be dispositive of asylum, withholding, and CAT claims)