Xing Tong Dong v. Holder , 441 F. App'x 38 ( 2011 )

10-3652-ag
Dong v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A088 552 386
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING
A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18th day of October, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 XING TONG DONG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 10-3652-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Freddy Jacobs, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Blair T. O’Connor,
28 Assistant Director; Edward C.
29 Durant, Trial Attorney, Office of
1
1 Immigration Litigation, Civil
2 Division, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Xing Tong Dong, a native and citizen of
10 China, seeks review of a August 13, 2010 order of the BIA
11 affirming the October 30, 2008 decision of Immigration Judge
12 (“IJ”) Robert Weisel denying his application for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xing Tong Dong, No. A088 552
15 386 (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2010), aff’g No. A088 552 386 (Immig.
16 Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2008). We assume the parties’
17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
18 in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
21 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
22 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
24 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 Contrary to Dong’s position, the agency reasonably
2 concluded that his six hours of detention, during which he
3 was forced to write a “self-confession” letter, did not rise
4 to the level of persecution. Brief periods of detention, on
5 their own, may not rise to the level of persecution. See Ai
6 Feng Yuan v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 416 F.3d 192, 198 (2d
7 Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v.
8 U.S. Dep't. of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 313 (2d Cir. 2007).
9 Nor did the incident in which family planning officials
10 threatened Dong with possible sterilization rise to the
11 level of persecution. See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att'y Gen.,
12 449 F.3d 408, 412 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting persecution
13 claims involving unfulfilled threats).
14 Because Dong did not provide any evidence that he was
15 threatened with sterilization after his wife’s forced
16 abortion, and the record evidence fails to indicate that he
17 would be sterilized if he were to return to China, Dong also
18 did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
19 persecution, i.e. sterilization. See Jian Xing Huang v.
20 INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding
21 that, absent solid support in the record for the
3
1 petitioner’s assertion that he would be subjected to
2 persecution in China because of his desire to have more
3 children, his fear was “speculative at best”). Accordingly,
4 because Dong did not establish that he suffered past
5 persecution or that his fear of sterilization was
6 objectively reasonable, he did not establish his eligibility
7 for asylum or withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire v.
8 Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2004).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
20
21
4