BING ZHEN LIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 376 F. App'x 153

SUMMARY ORDER Bing Zhen Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 26, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the August 14, 2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Horn, which denied Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bing Zhen Lin, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA May 26, 2009), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 14, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision including the portions not explicitly discussed by the BIA. Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.2008). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167.

The IJ found Lin’s testimony not credible based on: (1) her response during her initial interview that she did not fear persecution or torture if returned to China; (2) her inconsistent testimony and lack of corroboration regarding her husband’s gambling debts; (3) her testimony that although she was a fugitive, she departed China without difficulty; (4) inconsistencies between her testimony and letters she submitted from her father and her friend; and (5) implausible aspects of her claim. We are not compelled to find error in any of these findings, or in the IJ’s refusal to credit the explanations Lin offered.

See id.; Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d Cir.2005). In particular, the IJ reasonably found “critical” Lin’s statement to authorities upon her arrival in this country that she did not fear persecution if returned to China. The IJ did not err in relying on the record of Lin’s initial interview because the complete interview transcript appears in the record. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir.2004).

Moreover, Lin admitted that her responses to the other questions were accurate, that she was provided with an interpreter, and that the interview record bore her signature, photo, and fingerprint. Id. That statement, coupled with the other discrepancies the IJ identified, provides ample support for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on her alleged practice of Falun Gong in the United States.

Lin admitted that rather than reflecting her ongoing practice, the photographs she submitted in support of that claim were taken on a single day. Moreover, she was unable to explain the meaning of the “Nine Commentaries” banner she was holding in one of the photographs. Lin failed to provide additional corroborating evidence, such as testimony from her fellow Falun Gong practitioners or examples of the books and CDs she claimed to study. Accordingly, we find no error in the agency’s conclusion that Lin failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v.

INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir.2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best.”); see also Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2008) (holding that to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing that authorities in his country of nationality are either aware or likely to become aware of his activities). Accordingly, the agency’s denial of Lin’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was proper.

See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.2006). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).