Lin v. Barr

18-1715
Lin v. Barr
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A205 440 977
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 7th day of August, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 BAOGUI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-1715
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yevgeny Samokhleb, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Holly M. Smith, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Christin M.
28 Whitacre, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
1 States Department of Justice,
2 Washington, DC.
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
6 is DENIED.
7 Petitioner Baogui Lin, a native and citizen of the
8 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 21, 2018
9 decision of the BIA affirming a July 25, 2017 decision of an
10 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for
11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
12 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Baogui Lin, No. A
13 205 440 977 (B.I.A. May 21, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 440 977
14 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 25, 2017). We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
17 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang
18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 Because the BIA assumed credibility, we assume credibility as
20 to past events and as to Lin’s subjective fear of future harm.
21 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271-72 (2d Cir. 2005).
22 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332
2
1 (2d Cir. 2013).
2 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish
3 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
4 of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2);
5 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
6 To do so, an applicant must show either a reasonable
7 possibility that he would be singled out for persecution or
8 that the country of removal has a pattern or practice of
9 persecuting similarly situated individuals. 8 C.F.R.
10 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); see In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737,
11 741 (BIA 2005) (pattern or practice of persecution is the
12 “systemic or pervasive” persecution of a group). “[T]o
13 establish eligibility for relief based exclusively on
14 activities undertaken after his arrival in the United States,
15 an alien must make some showing that authorities in his
16 country of nationality are (1) aware of his activities or (2)
17 likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng
18 v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2008).
19 As evidence that Chinese authorities are aware of his
20 religious activities in the United States, Lin provided his
21 own statement and testimony, the statement and testimony of
22 a friend in the United States who claimed to have been
23 visiting his parents’ home in China when police raided it,
3
1 and unsworn letters from his cousin and father in China
2 stating that the Chinese authorities knew he had sent a Bible
3 from the United States. Lin was not able to give specific,
4 detailed testimony about Chinese police arresting his cousin.
5 He testified that she had moved away from his home province,
6 that he has not spoken to her in many years, and that he does
7 not know whether she still practices Christianity. He did
8 not know how many times police had come to his parents’ home,
9 because he has never asked his parents about it. His witness,
10 who testified that she had been visiting Lin’s parents in
11 China when people came to the home looking to arrest Lin, did
12 not know who the individuals were or how long they stayed.
13 She admitted she never had contact with Lin when they both
14 lived in China, does not have his contact information here in
15 the United States, and does not know the name of Lin’s parents
16 or siblings she visited in China. The agency reasonably
17 determined that, even assuming credibility, Lin’s testimony
18 and statement, and that of his witness, did not provide
19 specific evidence that the Chinese authorities remain
20 interested in Lin and his practice of Christianity.
21 As for the unsworn letters from Lin’s cousin and father
22 in China, we defer to the agency’s decision to afford them
23 little weight. See Y.C., 741 F.3d at 334; see also Hongsheng
4
1 Leng, 528 F.3d at 143. Further, Lin did not corroborate his
2 assertion that authorities are aware of his religious
3 practice, and thus the agency did not err in finding that
4 assertion speculative. See Y.C., 741 F.3d at 334; see also
5 Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
6 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . . [an
7 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best.”).
8 The agency also reasonably concluded that the evidence
9 and country conditions did not support Lin’s claim that there
10 is a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated
11 Christians in China. Lin testified that he practices his
12 religion by attending church, spending time with other
13 followers, and reading the Bible. The State Department’s
14 2015 International Religious Freedom Report states that there
15 are approximately 45 million Christians practicing in
16 unregistered churches in China and that authorities in some
17 areas allow unregistered churches to hold services “provided
18 they remained small in scale,” although authorities in other
19 areas target and close such churches. See Rep. at 3, 14. 1
20 It further reports that China’s State Administration for
21 Religious Affairs policy provides that “family and friends
1The report is available at https://2009-
2017.state.gov/documents/organization/256309.pdf.
5
1 have the right to meet at home for worship, including prayer
2 and Bible study, without registering with the government.”
3 Id. at 6. The country conditions evidence therefore
4 indicates that the religious activities Lin intends to
5 partake in are tolerated, at least in some areas. Moreover,
6 Lin testified he does not know where the underground churches
7 are in China or what area he would go to, that his parents
8 continue to read the Bible at home and have not been harmed
9 in Fujian province, and that his cousin may still practice
10 Christianity in Sichuan Province. Also, Lin testified that
11 he was not aware of specific instances of persecution of
12 Christians returning to China.
13 Given the large number of Christians practicing in
14 unregistered churches and the fact that the restrictions on
15 their activities varied by region, the agency did not err in
16 determining that Lin failed to demonstrate the systemic or
17 pervasive persecution of similarly situated Christians. See
18 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); see also Santoso v. Holder,
19 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding denial of
20 pattern or practice claim where evidence reflected that
21 violence was not nationwide and that Catholics in many parts
22 of Indonesia were free to practice their faith); Jian Hui
23 Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 149, 169–70 (2d Cir. 2008)
6
1 (finding no error in the agency’s requirement that an
2 applicant demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution
3 specific to his or her local area of China when persecutory
4 acts vary according to locality). Accordingly, the agency
5 did not err in finding that Lin failed to satisfy his burden
6 of proving a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8
7 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). Because the agency reasonably found
8 that Lin failed to demonstrate the well-founded fear of
9 persecution needed for asylum, he “necessarily” failed to
10 meet the higher standards for withholding of removal and CAT
11 relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
14 stays VACATED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17 Clerk of Court
7