Chun Ling Wang v. Lynch ( 2016 )

15-1862
Wang v. Lynch
BIA
Wright, IJ
A205 237 038
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 2nd day of September, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 CHUN LING WANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-1862
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Douglas
28 E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director;
29 John M. McAdams, Jr., Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, United States
1 Department of Justice, Washington,
2 D.C.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
7 DENIED.
8 Petitioner Chun Ling Wang, a native and citizen of People’s
9 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 18, 2015, decision of
10 the BIA affirming the May 13, 2014, decision of an Immigration
11 Judge (“IJ”) denying Wang’s application for asylum, withholding
12 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
13 (“CAT”). In re Chun Ling Wang, No. A205 237 038 (B.I.A. May
14 18, 2015), aff’g No. A205 237 038 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 13,
15 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
16 facts and procedural history in this case.
17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for
18 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
19 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
20 standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d
22 Cir. 2009).
23 Absent past persecution, an applicant such as Wang may
24 establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a
2
1 well-founded fear of future persecution, 8 C.F.R.
2 § 1208.13(b)(2), which must be both subjectively credible and
3 objectively reasonable, Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d
4 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To establish a well-founded fear, an
5 applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that she
6 would be singled out for persecution or that the country of
7 removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting individuals
8 similarly situated to her. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
9 The agency did not err in finding that Wang failed to
10 establish a well-founded fear of being singled out for
11 persecution on account of her religion. She admitted that she
12 had not attended church regularly either in China or the United
13 States. Given that admission, the agency did not err in
14 requiring additional corroboration of her religious practice
15 even though it had deemed her credible. See 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see also Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-99.
17 Wang failed to submit any such corroboration.
18 Wang admitted that the priest at her church refused to issue
19 a certificate of attendance or testify on her behalf because
20 she had not attended church regularly. Nor did she ask her
21 fellow church members in the United States or her family for
22 statements to corroborate her church attendance.
3
1 A letter from the friend who introduced Wang to Catholicism
2 in China states only that Wang attended church a few times in
3 China, and does not indicate that Wang’s friend has suffered
4 any harm in China on account of her own religious practice. See
5 Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999)
6 (finding future fear diminished when similarly situated
7 individuals are able to live unharmed in asylum applicant’s
8 native country).
9 Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding that Wang
10 failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of being
11 singled out for persecution on account of her Catholic faith.
12 See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
13 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . . , [an
14 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best.”); see also Chuilu
15 Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-98.
16 The agency also did not err in determining that Wang failed
17 to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly
18 situated individuals. The country conditions evidence in the
19 record reflects that tens of millions of individuals practice
20 in unregistered churches in China, and that in some areas such
21 practice is tolerated without interference. Therefore, Wang
22 failed to demonstrate “systemic or pervasive” persecution of
23 similarly situated Catholics sufficient to demonstrate a
4
1 pattern or practice of persecution in China. In re A-M-, 23
2 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005); see also 8 C.F.R.
3 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 &
4 n.1 (2d Cir. 2009).
5 Because the agency reasonably found that Wang failed to
6 demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, it did not err
7 in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief given
8 that all three claims were based on the same factual predicate.
9 See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, petitioner’s pending
12 motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5