Asylum; removal; credibility determinations
An IJ did not err when she made an adverse credibility determination regarding appellant’s claims in an asylum application that the Chinese government had forced his wife’s abortion and sterilization, where there were inconsistencies in his testimony and the DHS submitted evidence that the certificates of those procedures were falsified.
“Turning to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, Lin’s only argument is that the IJ placed insufficient weight on the abortion and sterilization certificates. Yet the IJ was entitled to give them whatever weight she thought they deserved in light of all the evidence. See Weng v. Holder, 593 F.3d 66, 72 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2010) (concluding that documentary evidence did not compel a finding of persecution ‘especially in the absence of credible testimony on [the alien’s] part’); Feto v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 907, 911 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that the IJ was entitled to weigh documentary evidence along with other evidence in the case). The IJ reasoned that the certificates were ‘not entitled to full evidentiary weight’ because Lin ‘did not provide very detailed testimony,’ particularly with respect to his wife’s sterilization. A lack of detail is a ‘major clue’ that someone is lying. Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 788-89 (7th Cir. 2008). Indeed, Lin did not provide much detail about his wife’s abortion, sterilization, or the events surrounding these procedures. Even if the certificates should have been given more weight, they contain nothing to suggest that these procedures were forced upon Lin’s wife. We find no reason to disturb the IJ’s weighing of the certificates.”
In addition, his arguments that the IJ and Board erred in failing to recognize the ineffective assistance of his counsel, and that the IJ erred in failing to determine whether he was competent to testify, are similarly unavailing.
The petition for review is denied.
10-1401 Lin v. Holder
Board of Immigration Appeals, Tinder, J.