Filed: Jul. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 09-2916-ag Guo v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A070 578 341 A099 936 087 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 (
Summary: 09-2916-ag Guo v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A070 578 341 A099 936 087 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 (W..
More
09-2916-ag
Guo v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A070 578 341
A099 936 087
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 22 nd day of July, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 DENNY CHIN,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ______________________________________
13
14 ZHEN JIE GUO, YI MEI WANG,
15 Petitioners,
16
17 v. 09-2916-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: David A. Bredin, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
28 Director; William C. Minick,
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department
31 of Justice, 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 Zhen Jie Guo and Yi Mei Wang, natives and citizens of
6 the People’s Republic of China, seek review of a June 19,
7 2009, order of the BIA affirming the December 5, 2007,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew,
9 pretermitting their applications for asylum and denying
10 their applications for withholding of removal and relief
11 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhen
12 Jie Guo, Yi Mei Wang Nos. A070 578 341, A099 936 087 (BIA
13 June 19, 2009), aff’g Nos. A070 578 341, A099 936 087
14 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 5, 2007). We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
16 in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
18 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
19 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
20 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
21 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d
22 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 I. Petitioners’ Political Opinion Claim
2 The agency reasonably determined that petitioners
3 failed to establish a clear probability of future
4 persecution due to their general opposition to Chinese
5 government policy. Even if subjectively held, petitioners
6 failed to demonstrate that authorities in China are aware or
7 likely to become aware of their opinions. See Hongsheng
8 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (“to
9 establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence
10 of any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some
11 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are
12 either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of
13 his activities”); Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 128-
14 29 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that, absent solid support in the
15 record for the petitioner’s assertion that he would
16 persecuted, his fear was “speculative at best”).
17 II. Petitioners’ Family Planning Claim
18 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
19 determination that petitioners failed to establish a clear
20 probability of future persecution based on the birth of
21 their two United States citizen children. We have
22 previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of evidence
3
1 similar to that which petitioners submitted and have found
2 no error in its conclusion that such evidence was
3 insufficient to establish material changed country
4 conditions or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution.
5 See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do
6 not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record
7 evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the
8 agency”); see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270, 275
9 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider
10 evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it]
11 is asked to consider time and again[,] . . . it may do so in
12 summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it
13 has abused its discretion”). Nothing in the record compels
14 us to conclude that the BIA ignored the evidence petitioners
15 submitted or the arguments they made, evidence and arguments
16 the BIA is asked to consider time and again. See Xiao Ji
17
Chen, 471 F.3d at 338 n.17.
18 Because petitioners were unable to establish the
19 objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an
20 asylum claim, they were necessarily unable to establish a
21 clear probability of future persecution or a likelihood of
22 torture. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 155-56 (2d
4
1 Cir. 2006).
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the stay of
4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5 is VACATED. Any pending request for oral argument in this
6 petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
7 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
8 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
5
