Yang v. Atty Gen USA ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-8-2005
Yang v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4361
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Yang v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1042.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1042
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4361
________________
DING FENG YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
*ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Responent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A79 682 421)
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 25, 2005
BEFORE: ALITO, SMITH and BECKER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: June 8, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Ding Feng Yang seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition.
Because we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and
background, we will not recount them except as necessary to our discussion. Yang, a
citizen of the People’s Republic of China, entered the United States in 2002 without valid
documents. He appeared before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and conceded that he was
removable on this basis. Yang applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that he faced persecution and torture
on account of his religion, Christianity. The IJ first ruled that Yang failed to prove that he
is a Christian because he has not been baptized, does not attend Bible study, and provided
no witnesses who could corroborate his commitment and dedication to Christianity.
Alternatively, the IJ ruled that even if Yang is a Christian, he failed to prove that he was
persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to China. The BIA, by a
single member, affirmed without opinion. Yang now petitions for review.1
The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to any alien who qualifies as a
refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1); Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir.
2003). For relevant purposes, a refugee is any alien who is unable or unwilling to return
to his country of nationality because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of
persecution on account of religion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Lukwago, 329 F.3d at
1
We have jurisdiction over Yang’s petition for review pursuant 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Because the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. See
Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc).
2
167.2 We review the IJ’s factual determination that Yang has not demonstrated past
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution under the substantial evidence standard.
Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002). Under this standard, we will uphold
the IJ’s findings to the extent that they are supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record as a whole. Id.Upon review of the record as a whole, we find reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence to support the IJ’s decision. In particular, we agree with the IJ that
Yang failed to prove that he was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution if
returned to China.3 The IJ credited Yang’s testimony that he had attended a religious
gathering from which he fled when Chinese officials disrupted. The IJ also believed
Yang’s testimony that he was a fisherman whose family depended on his income for
support, and that his boat had been destroyed. As the IJ properly noted, however, no
evidence suggests that Yang was detained, arrested, beaten, or otherwise subjected to any
extreme treatment giving rise to a claim of persecution. No evidence suggests that the
2
Yang also applied for statutory withholding of removal, which requires him to show
that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted on account of one of the
statutorily prescribed attributes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b);
Lukwago, 299 F.3d at 182. Because we agree with the IJ that Yang failed to satisfy the
standard for asylum, as explained herein, he necessarily fails to meet the standard for
statutory withholding of removal. See Lukwago, 299 F.3d at 182. To the extent Yang
also applied for relief under the CAT, we find no evidence giving rise to a claim of
torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c).
3
We need not review the IJ’s finding that Yang failed to prove that he is a Christian.
We note only that the record provides no support for the proposition that an individual
who wishes to become a Christian must be baptized and attend Bible study regularly.
3
destruction of his boat was in any way related to his religion. No evidence suggests that
Yang is a religious leader or that Chinese officials still look for him based on his
attendance at a Christian gathering. In other words, the IJ correctly ruled that Yang failed
to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.
In sum, we conclude that the IJ’s decision is supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record as a whole. Accordingly, we will deny Yang’s
petition for review.