Yuechan Weng v. Holder , 591 F. App'x 18 ( 2014 )

14-105
Weng v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A087 790 944
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 9th day of December, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YUECHAN WENG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-105
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
27 Director; Jeffrey R. Meyer,
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Yuechan Weng, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of the December 23, 2013, decision of the BIA
7 affirming the November 2, 2011, decision of the Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”), denying her application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yuechan Weng, No. A087 790
11 944 (B.I.A. Dec. 23, 2013), aff’g No. A087 790 944 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2011). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue
17 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
18 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 The agency reasonably concluded that, even assuming
22 Weng’s credibility, she did not meet her burden of
23 establishing that she suffered past persecution or had a
2
1 well-founded fear of future persecution. “[P]ersecution is
2 an extreme concept that does not include every sort of
3 treatment our society regards as offensive.” Mei Fun Wong
4 v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal
5 quotation marks and citations omitted). The harm must be
6 sufficiently severe, rising above “mere harassment.”
7 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d
8 Cir. 2006).
9 Weng testified that, while she was detained following
10 her arrest for worshiping in an unsanctioned church, one
11 police officer hit her in the face with a religious pamphlet
12 about 20 or 30 times, which resulted in bruising requiring
13 topical anti-inflammatory medication. The agency reasonably
14 determined that such an account was insufficient to
15 establish harm with the requisite severity to constitute
16 persecution. See Mei Fun Wong, 633 F.3d at 72; cf. Jian Qiu
17 Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e find
18 no error in the BIA’s conclusion that [petitioner] failed to
19 establish persecution because . . ., prior to his arrest and
20 detention by local police, he suffered only minor bruising
21 from an altercation with family planning officials, which
22 required no formal medical attention and had no lasting
23 physical effect.” (emphasis in original)).
3
1 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish
2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
3 of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To
4 establish a well-founded fear of persecution, an applicant
5 must show that she subjectively fears persecution and that
6 this fear is objectively reasonable. Ramsameachire v.
7 Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). An applicant
8 need not “provide evidence that there is a reasonable
9 possibility [] she would be singled out individually for
10 persecution if . . . [t]he applicant establishes that there
11 is a pattern or practice in his or her country of
12 nationality . . . of persecution of a group of persons
13 similarly situated to the applicant.” 8 C.F.R. §
14 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Irrespective of the theory, the agency
15 did not err in finding that Weng failed to demonstrate a
16 well-founded fear of persecution.
17 The agency acknowledged that the Chinese government
18 treated leaders and members of certain religious groups
19 poorly, but reasonably noted that the country conditions
20 evidence indicated that the Chinese government permits small
21 groups to worship in homes without registering and does not
22 interfere with unregistered religious groups in certain
4
1 areas of the country. That evidence did not compel a
2 finding that Weng’s fear of being singled out for
3 persecution is objectively reasonable, or that there is a
4 pattern or practice of persecution against similarly
5 situated practitioners. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
6 F.3d 138, 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that the agency is
7 not compelled to resolve conflicts in record evidence in the
8 applicant’s favor so long as substantial evidence raises
9 doubts that authorities will single out the applicant for
10 persecution and the agency does not overlook contrary
11 evidence); Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d
12 Cir. 2009) (denying petition where agency considered
13 background materials and rejected pattern-or-practice
14 claim).
15 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that
16 Weng failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
17 persecution on account of her practice of Christianity, it
18 did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
19 CAT relief because those claims were based on the same
20 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
21 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
23 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5
1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
6