Qiu v. Sessions

16-2711
Qiu v. Sessions
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A205 890 367
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 9th day of April, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LI QING QIU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2711
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,
27 Assistant Director; Brendan P.
28 Hogan, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Li Qing Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 21, 2016, decision
7 of the BIA affirming a May 21, 2015, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding
9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Li Qing Qiu, No. A205 890 367 (B.I.A. July 21,
11 2016), aff’g No. A205 890 367 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 21,
12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
15 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
16 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
17 standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
19 Cir. 2009).
20 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
21 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of
22 future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must be
23 both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable,
2
1 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
2 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either
3 a reasonable possibility that she would be singled out for
4 persecution or that the country of removal has a pattern or
5 practice of persecuting individuals similarly situated to her.
6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i), (iii). “Put simply, to establish
7 a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of any
8 evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some showing
9 that authorities in [her] country of nationality are either
10 aware of [her] activities or likely to become aware of [her]
11 activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d
12 Cir. 2008). Qiu failed to establish a well-founded fear of
13 persecution in China on account of her intentions to practice
14 her Catholic faith in an unregistered church and proselytize.
15 The country conditions evidence provides that tens of
16 millions of individuals practice in unregistered churches in
17 China, and that in some areas unsanctioned religious practices
18 are tolerated without interference. The evidence does not
19 discuss any incidents of persecution against Catholics for
20 proselytizing. Therefore, despite evidence of sporadic
21 arrests of religious practitioners and public proselytizers,
22 Qiu did not establish that Chinese officials are likely to
23 become aware of her religious practice (whether worshiping on
3
1 proselytizing) or a reasonable possibility that she would be
2 persecuted as a result. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i),
3 (iii); see also Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142-43; In re A-M-,
4 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005) (defining pattern or
5 practice as “systemic or pervasive” persecution of a group).
6 Accordingly, the agency did not err in concluding that Qiu
7 failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on
8 account of her religion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i),
9 (iii); Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142-43. That finding was
10 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief
11 given that all three claims were based on the same factual
12 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
13 2006).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
16 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
17 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
18 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
19 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
20 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
21 34.1(b).
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4