Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ji Tong Lin v. Holder
Citation: 376 F. App'x 696Docket: Nos. 06-75274, 07-71699
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 16, 2010; Federal Appellate Court
Ji Tong Lin, a Chinese national, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge (IJ) ruling denying his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Jurisdiction is based on 8 U.S.C. 1252, with findings reviewed for substantial evidence and motions to reopen assessed for abuse of discretion. In petition No. 06-75274, the court denies the petition. In petition No. 07-71699, the court denies in part and dismisses in part. The court finds substantial evidence supports the BIA's adverse credibility determination due to significant inconsistencies between Lin's testimony and documentary evidence, particularly regarding his claimed injuries and alleged escort of U.S. citizens into China. Without credible testimony, Lin's claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. His CAT claim is similarly undermined by the lack of credible evidence and does not demonstrate that he is likely to face torture upon return to China. Lin's claim that the IJ did not consider all evidence is contradicted by the record. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin's motion to reopen, having considered the submitted evidence and determined Lin did not establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. The BIA's denial can only be overturned if arbitrary or irrational. Additionally, the court lacks jurisdiction over Lin's claim regarding future economic persecution related to plans for a third child, as this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. The final outcome is that petition No. 06-75274 is denied, and petition No. 07-71699 is denied in part and dismissed in part, with the disposition not being suitable for publication or as precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.