Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chang Shun Lin v. Gonzales
Citation: 132 F. App'x 911Docket: No. 03-40771
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 6, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Chang Shun Lin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision from September 29, 2003, which affirmed an Immigration Judge (IJ) ruling that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), ultimately ordering his removal from the United States. The IJ's credibility determination, treated as a factual finding, was based on substantial evidence, including inconsistencies in Lin's statements during his airport interview and his admission of having lied about his reasons for seeking asylum. Initially, Lin claimed he faced religious persecution for practicing Falun Gong but later admitted he did not practice it. He also stated he would be harmed if he returned to China due to living illegally with his girlfriend and claimed his intent in coming to the U.S. was to work. In his asylum application, Lin alleged a well-founded fear of persecution stemming from his mother's forced sterilization and discrimination against his family for violating China's family planning laws. He submitted various supporting documents, including an affidavit from his mother and a medical opinion regarding her sterilization. The IJ found Lin not credible and concluded that any discrimination he faced did not amount to persecution. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, noting that the most recent State Department report indicated that imprisonment upon repatriation occurs only after a second offense, not a first. The court ultimately upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and found Lin's CAT claim unmeritorious. Therefore, Lin’s petition for review was denied.