Filed: Sep. 23, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4156-ag Yu v. Holder BIA Defonzo, IJ A099 679 537 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 NO
Summary: 09-4156-ag Yu v. Holder BIA Defonzo, IJ A099 679 537 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 NOT..
More
09-4156-ag
Yu v. Holder
BIA
Defonzo, IJ
A099 679 537
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 23 rd day of September, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 CHUN YONG YU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4156-ag
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
28 Director; Jennifer A. Singer, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department
1 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
5 is DENIED.
6 Chun Yong Yu, a native and citizen of the People’s
7 Republic of China, seeks review of a September 11, 2009,
8 order of the BIA affirming the December 13, 2007, decision
9 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. Defonzo, denying his
10 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
11 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chun
12 Yong Yu, No. A099 679 537 (B.I.A. Sept. 11, 2009), aff’g No.
13 A099 679 537 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 13, 2007). We assume
14 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
15 procedural history in this case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review
17 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision.
18 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep't of
21 Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
22 I. Asylum
23 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
2
1 determination that Yu’s claimed fear of future persecution
2 based on his conversion to Roman Catholicism is too
3 speculative to warrant relief. Specifically, the BIA
4 reasonably found Yu’s claim–that if he returned to China, he
5 would locate and join an underground church, police would
6 then discover this underground church and associate him with
7 it, and, consequently, the Chinese government would engage
8 in harmful acts against him rising to the level of
9 persecution-to be too speculative. See Jian Xing Huang v.
10 INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005 ); cf. Savchuck v.
11 Mukasey,
518 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2008); Matter of J-F-F-,
12 23 I. & N. Dec. 912, 918 n.4 (BIA 2006). Moreover,
13 substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the
14 background evidence Yu submitted fails to establish a
15 pattern or practice of persecution of Roman Catholics in
16 China.
17 See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(2), 208.16(b)(2); Santoso v.
18 Holder,
580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) ; Mufied v. Mukasey,
19
508 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir. 2007). In reaching that
20 conclusion, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-
21 finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). Rather, it
22 properly examined de novo the uncontested facts in the
3
1 record, and reasonably determined that those facts did not
2 meet the legal standard for demonstrating a pattern or
3 practice of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) ;
4 see also Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 209, 212
5 (BIA 2010); Matter of A-S-B-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 493, 496-97
6 (BIA 2008).
7 Nor do we find persuasive Yu’s argument that the agency
8 failed to consider all of the evidence in finding that his
9 fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable.
10 Indeed, the agency acknowledged that “Christians, including
11 Catholics, have been harassed in China, that house churches
12 are interfered with by the government, and that church
13 leaders and some lay persons have been detained and
14 physically abused.” However, the 2006 State Department
15 Country Report on China and 2006 and 2007 State Department
16 International Religious Freedom Reports from China indicate
17 that, although harassment, violence, and destruction of
18 underground churches occurs in China, many Catholics are
19 able to practice their faith freely, participate in
20 unregistered churches and prayer groups, and that many meet
21 openly without incident. Thus, the record does not compel
22 the conclusion that the BIA failed to consider any of Yu’s
4
1 evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471
2 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Wei Guang Wang
3 v. BIA,
437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006).
4 II. Illegal Departure, Withholding of Removal, and CAT
5 Claims
6 Because Yu has failed to challenge sufficiently the
7 agency’s denial of his illegal departure, withholding of
8 removal, and CAT claims before this Court, we deem any such
9 arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,
426 F.3d
10 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
15 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
