Gui Feng Yang v. Holder

09-3665-ag
Yang v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A094 923 475
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 29 th day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 GUI FENG YANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-3665-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
28 Director; Genevieve Holm, Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
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 Gui Feng Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a July 31, 2009, order of
7 the BIA affirming the January 15, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom, which denied his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gui
11 Feng Yang, No. A094 923 475 (B.I.A. July 31, 2009), aff’g
12 No. A094 923 475 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 15, 2008). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue Hong
17 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
18 2005). The applicable standards of review are well-
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Although economic persecution may constitute
22 persecution, see Mirzoyan v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 217, 221 (2d
2
1 Cir. 2006); see also Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163,
2 170-71 (BIA 2007), the agency reasonably found that the
3 unpaid family planning fine imposed on Yang and the sabotage
4 of his family’s crops did not amount to persecution because
5 he did not demonstrate that these economic penalties rose to
6 the level of persecution. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t
7 of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 68 (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that the
8 agency reasonably concluded that the petitioner failed to
9 demonstrate economic persecution because he did not produce
10 evidence of his income in China, his net worth at the time
11 of the fines, or any other facts that would make it possible
12 to evaluate his personal financial circumstances in relation
13 to the fines imposed by the government) . The agency also
14 reasonably determined that Yang did not establish a well-
15 founded fear of future persecution based on his unsupported
16 fear of harm for failure to pay his fine. See Jian Xing
17 Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding
18 that a fear is not objectively reasonable and is merely
19 “speculative at best” if it lacks “solid support” in the
20 record).
21 Because Yang was unable to show the objective
22 likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum
3
1 claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard
2 required to succeed on his claim for withholding of removal
3 because both claims were based on the same factual
4 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
5 2006). Yang does not challenge the agency’s denial of his
6 application for CAT relief.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
9 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
10 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
11 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
12 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
4