Gan Lin v. Holder

13-1489
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Bukszpan, IJ
A088 785 939
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 24th day of April, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 GAN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1489
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Oleh R. Tustaniwsky, Brooklyn, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Holly M. Smith, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Edward C.
29 Durant, Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
7 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
8 review is DENIED.
9 Gan Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
10 of China, seeks review of a March 21, 2013, order of the BIA
11 affirming the February 7, 2011, decision of Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan, denying him asylum and
13 withholding of removal. In re Gan Lin, No. A088 785 939
14 (B.I.A. Mar. 21, 2013), aff’g No. A088 785 939 (Immig. Ct.
15 N.Y. City Feb. 7, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity
16 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
17 case.
18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
19 “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
20 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation
21 omitted). The applicable standards of review are well
22 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
23 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The only
24 issue properly before us is whether Lin established a well-
2
1 founded fear or likelihood of persecution on account of his
2 alleged resistance to China’s family planning policy.
3 Absent past persecution, an applicant can qualify for
4 asylum or withholding of removal by demonstrating that:
5 (1) he engaged in “other resistance” to the family planning
6 policy; and (2) he has a well-founded fear or likelihood of
7 suffering persecution on account of that resistance. See
8 Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 313
9 (2d Cir. 2007); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 C.F.R.
10 § 1208.16(b). Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear
11 of persecution on account of his resistance to the family
12 planning policy.
13 As the agency found, even assuming that Lin’s assault
14 of a family planning officer constituted resistance to the
15 family planning policy, he failed to demonstrate that his
16 fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. Lin
17 provided no evidence that individuals arrested for resisting
18 the family planning policy face mistreatment in detention,
19 much less harm rising to the level of persecution. “In the
20 absence of solid support in the record for [an applicant’s]
21 assertion that he will be subjected to [persecution], his
22 fear is speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421
3
1 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we find no error
2 in the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
3 See id.; see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d
4 Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
17
4