Yi Can Lin v. United States Department of Justice

Second Circuit

Yi Can Lin v. United States Department of Justice

139 F. App'x 329

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 20, 2005

DocketDocket No. 03-4358

StatusPublished

This text of 139 F. App'x 329 (Yi Can Lin v. United States Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yi Can Lin v. United States Department of Justice, 139 F. App'x 329 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Yi Can Lin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of a January 31, 2003 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Lin’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

‘We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s determinations under the substantial evidence standard, reversing only if ‘no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to find’ that petitioner suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution or torture.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 177 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). “When a factual challenge pertains to a credibility finding made by an IJ and adopted by the BIA, we afford ‘particular deference’ in applying the substantial evidence standard.” Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Montero v. INS, 124 F.3d 381, 386 (2d Cir.1997)). Where, as in this case, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision and adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decision of the IJ directly. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 305 (2d Cir.2003). The IJ deemed Lin incredible and, based on that ruling, concluded that Lin was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. That ruling was supported by substantial evidence.

For the reasons set forth above, the petition is hereby DENIED. The outstanding motion for stay of removal is hereby DENIED as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

Yi Can Lin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of a January 31, 2003 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Lin’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. We assume that the parties are familiar with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of the issues presented on appeal.

‘We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s determinations under the substantial evidence standard, reversing only if ‘no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to find’ that petitioner suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution or torture.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 177 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 287 (2d Cir.2000)). “When a factual challenge pertains to a credibility finding made by an IJ and adopted by the BIA, we afford ‘particular deference’ in applying the substantial evidence standard.” Zhang v. INS, 386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Montero v. INS, 124 F.3d 381, 386 (2d Cir.1997)). Where, as in this case, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision and adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review the decision of the IJ directly. Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 305 (2d Cir.2003). The IJ deemed Lin incredible and, based on that ruling, concluded that Lin was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. That ruling was supported by substantial evidence.

For the reasons set forth above, the petition is hereby DENIED. The outstanding motion for stay of removal is hereby DENIED as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 F. App'x 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yi-can-lin-v-united-states-department-of-justice-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack