Libin Xue v. Holder ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •          13-2130
    Xue v. Holder
    BIA
    Bukszpan, IJ
    A093 408 573
    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 Thurgood Marshall United
    3       States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
    4       on the 3rd day of November, two thousand fourteen.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                JON O. NEWMAN,
    8                DENNIS JACOBS,
    9                PIERRE N. LEVAL,
    10                     Circuit Judges.
    11       _____________________________________
    12
    13       LIBIN XUE,
    14                Petitioner,
    15
    16                       v.                                     13-2130
    17                                                              NAC
    18
    19       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    20       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    21                Respondent.
    22       _____________________________________
    23
    24       FOR PETITIONER:               Libin Xue, pro se, Flushing, New
    25                                     York.
    26
    27       FOR RESPONDENT:               Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
    28                                     General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
    08152014-B3-4
    1                                  Director; Anthony C. Payne, Senior
    2                                  Litigation Counsel, Office of
    3                                  Immigration Litigation, United
    4                                  States Department of Justice,
    5                                  Washington, D.C.
    6
    7           UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    8   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    9   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
    10   is DENIED.
    11           Libin Xue, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
    12   of a May 3, 2013, decision of the BIA that: (1) affirmed the
    13   January 6, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna
    14   Miller Bukszpan, denying her application for asylum,
    15   withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
    16   Against Torture (“CAT”); and (2) denied her motion to
    17   remand.          In re Libin Xue, No. A093 408 573 (B.I.A. May 3,
    18   2013), aff’g No. A093 408 573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 6,
    19   2011).          We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
    20   underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
    21           Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
    22   the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA.          See Yan Chen
    23   v. Gonzales, 
    417 F.3d 268
    , 271 (2d Cir. 2005).          The
    24   applicable standards of review are well established.          See
    25   Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d Cir. 2009); see
    08152014-B3-4                        2
    1   also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 
    546 F.3d 138
    , 168-69 (2d Cir.
    2   2008); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 
    421 F.3d 149
    ,
    3   156-57 (2d Cir. 2005).
    4           Xue applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
    5   relief based on her claim that she fears persecution because
    6   she has had more than one child in violation of China’s
    7   population control program.         For largely the same reasons as
    8   this Court set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 
    546 F.3d 138
    , we find
    9   no error in the agency’s determination that Xue failed to
    10   demonstrate her eligibility for relief.         See 
    id. at 158-72.
    11           As to Xue’s motion to remand, we find no error in the
    12   BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate her prima
    13   facie eligibility for relief based on her conversion to
    14   Christianity.         The evidence Xue submitted did not
    15   demonstrate that Chinese authorities are aware of, or likely
    16   to become aware of, her religious practice.         See Hongsheng
    17   Leng v. Mukasey, 
    528 F.3d 135
    , 143 (2d Cir. 2008); see also
    18   Jian Hui 
    Shao, 546 F.3d at 168
    .
    19           For the foregoing reasons, this petition for review is
    20   DENIED.         As we have completed our review, any stay of
    21   removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
    22   is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
    08152014-B3-4                       3
    1   this petition is DISMISSED as moot.    Any pending request for
    2   oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
    3   Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
    4   Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
    5                                 FOR THE COURT:
    6                                 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    7
    8
    08152014-B3-4                  4