Yit Piew Huang v. Holder

11-2693-ag
Huang v. Holder
BIA
Verrillo, IJ
A088 740 922
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 11 th day of April, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YIT PIEW HUANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-2693-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: BENJAMIN B. XUE, Law Offices of
24 Benjamin B. Xue, P.C., New York, NY
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: KILEY L. KANE, Trial Attorney,
27 Office of Immigration Litigation,
28 Civil Division (Tony West, Assistant
29 Attorney General, John S. Hogan,
30 Senior Litigation Counsel, on the
31 brief), for Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
32 United States Attorney General,
33 Washington, D.C.
34
35
36
37
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 Petitioner Yit Piew Huang, a native and citizen of
6 Malaysia, seeks review of a June 10, 2011 decision of the
7 BIA, affirming the September 2, 2009 decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Philip Verrillo, pretermitting his claim for
9 asylum and denying withholding of removal and relief under
10 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yit Piew
11 Huang, No. A088 740 922 (B.I.A. Jun. 10, 2011), aff’g No.
12 A088 740 922 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 2, 2009). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case. The applicable
15 standards of review are well-established. 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
17 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
18 The agency reasonably found that the harm Huang
19 alleged—being attacked and punched by schoolchildren when he
20 was eight or nine years old and his overnight flight to the
21 jungle—is insufficient to rise to the level of persecution.
22 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d
2
1 Cir. 2006) Huang’s alleged harm did not occur while he was
2 detained or his liberty was restricted in any way, did not
3 require medical attention, and did not cause any lasting
4 physical effect. See Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820,
5 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
6 As Huang has failed to demonstrate past persecution or
7 allege any additional basis for a well-founded fear of
8 persecution, the agency did not err in finding he had not
9 demonstrated an objective likelihood of future persecution,
10 particularly given the ability of Huang and his family to
11 remain in Malaysia for roughly thirty years without harm.
12 Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
13 (per curiam) (a fear is not objectively reasonable if it
14 lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely
15 “speculative at best”); see also Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
16 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999). Finally, because Huang
17 was unable to show the objective likelihood of future
18 persecution needed to make out a withholding of removal
19 claim, he is necessarily unable to meet the higher standard
20 to succeed on a claim for CAT relief. Paul v. Gonzales, 444
21 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
22 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
4