An Li v. Lynch

14-3856
Li v. Lynch
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A200 927 650
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 29th day of October, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 AN LI,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 14-3856
18 NAC
19
20 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
28 Deputy Assistant Attorney
29 General; Linda S. Wernery,
1 Assistant Director; Christina
2 Parascandola, Trial Attorney,
3 United States Department of
4 Justice, Civil Division, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation,
6 Washington, D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
11 DENIED.
12 An Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
13 China, seeks review of a September 18, 2014 decision of the BIA
14 affirming an August 1, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge
15 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). In re An Li, No. A200 927 650 (B.I.A. Sept. 18, 2014),
18 aff’g No. A200 927 650 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 1, 2013). We
19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history in this case.
21 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered
22 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
23 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
24 2008) (per curiam). The applicable standards of review are well
2
1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he
2 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
3 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
4 contrary . . . .”); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
5 (2d Cir. 2009) (applying “substantial evidence” standard of
6 review). Li does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT
7 relief.
8 Li does not claim that he was persecuted in China; instead
9 he argues that he fears future persecution because he became
10 a Catholic in the United States. Absent past persecution, an
11 applicant can establish eligibility for asylum if he
12 demonstrates a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
13 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A); Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS,
14 445 F.3d 554, 564 (2d Cir. 2006). To do so, he must show that
15 he subjectively fears persecution and that his fear is
16 objectively reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357
17 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). There are two ways for an
18 applicant to show objective fear: offering evidence that he
19 would be singled out individually for persecution or proving
20 that a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated
21 persons exists in his home country. Id. at 183; 8 C.F.R. §
3
1 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Importantly, in order to establish a
2 well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence
3 of past persecution, “an alien must make some showing that
4 authorities in his [or her] country of nationality are either
5 aware of his [or her] activities or likely to become aware of
6 his [or her] activities.” Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332
7 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135,
8 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam)).
9 Li contends that he will be singled out individually for
10 persecution in China, but he did not submit any objective
11 evidence to support this contention or to show that the Chinese
12 government is aware, or likely to become aware, that he is a
13 Catholic. Li himself testified before the IJ that the Chinese
14 government currently is not aware of his Catholic faith and,
15 although stating his intention to continue practicing in China,
16 he did not provide support for how the government would become
17 aware on these grounds. Accordingly, the agency did not err
18 in concluding Li had not demonstrated an individualized
19 well-founded fear of persecution. See Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d
20 at 143.
4
1 Li also argues that there is a pattern or practice of
2 persecution of Catholics in China. To establish a pattern or
3 practice of persecution of a particular group, a petitioner must
4 demonstrate that the harm to that group constitutes
5 persecution, is perpetrated or tolerated by state actors, and
6 is “so systemic or pervasive as to amount to a pattern or
7 practice of persecution.” In re A-M-, 23 I & N Dec. 737, 741
8 (B.I.A. 2005); see Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 92–93 (2d
9 Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
10 determination that Li did not establish such a pattern or
11 practice. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d
12 Cir. 2008).
13 The IJ explicitly addressed Li’s claim and found that the
14 evidence did not show a pattern or practice of persecution of
15 Catholics. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 n.1 (2d
16 Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The agency specifically found that
17 although the evidence showed continued repression of religion
18 and harassment of church groups, such treatment varied by
19 region, was not pervasive in Li’s home province of Fujian, and
20 the most severe harm was reserved for church leaders. See Jian
21 Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 149-50, 159-60, 163-65. The agency’s
5
1 finding is supported by substantial evidence, based on country
2 conditions evidence in the record. Accordingly, the agency did
3 not err in finding that Li had not shown a pattern or practice
4 of persecution of Roman Catholics in China, and as a result is
5 ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See
6 Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178 (explaining withholding of
7 removal analysis entails “higher burden of proof,” such that
8 an alien failing an asylum claim “necessarily fails to establish
9 his entitlement to withholding of removal”).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
12 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
13 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
14 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
15 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
16 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
17 34.1(b).
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6