PENG LIN AKA v. SESSIONS III (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Peng Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of a January 19, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming the May 18, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Peng Lin, No. A205 930 983 (B.I.A. Jan. 19, 2016), aff’g No. A205 930 983 (Immig. Ct. New York City, May 18, 2015). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Lin was not credible. Although Lin testified consistently with his earlier statements regarding the alleged police abuse he suffered at an unregistered church in China, he made a number of admittedly false statements about his prior travel, including: (1) how many times he had obtained a passport; (2) whether he obtained a passport to flee persecution or to travel; (3) when and how often he left China; and (4) where he travelled. These numerous false statements provided a substantial basis for the agency to question Lin's veracity with respect to all aspects of his claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir. 2007) (“So a single false document or a single instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien's uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.”).

Lin also failed to exhaust his due process claim. Lin's brief to the BIA only characterized his claim regarding the unsubmitted record as evidentiary in nature, with a single citation to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a). “While this Court will not limit the petitioner 'to the exact contours of his argument below' ․ the issue raised on appeal must be either a 'specific, subsidiary legal argument[ ]' or 'an extension of [an] argument ․ raised directly before the BIA.'” Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) ). Lin's claim on appeal is neither a specific, subsidiary legal argument nor an extension of his argument below. We therefore conclude that Lin's due process claim was unexhausted. Moreover, even assuming the claim was exhausted, Lin was not prejudiced by the Government’s failure to submit the document in question because he admitted the veracity of the information contained therein. See Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008).

We have considered Lin’s remaining arguments and determined they lack merit. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.