Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-2231 Cui v. Lynch BIA Van Wyke, IJ A088 822 631 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 NOTA
Summary: 14-2231 Cui v. Lynch BIA Van Wyke, IJ A088 822 631 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 NOTAT..
More
14-2231
Cui v. Lynch
BIA
Van Wyke, IJ
A088 822 631
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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 24th day of November, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YONG CUI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-2231
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York,
25 New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Cindy S.
1 Ferrier, Assistant Director;
2 Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 United States Department of
5 Justice, Washington, D.C.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Yong Cui, a native and citizen of People’s
12 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014, decision
13 of the BIA affirming an August 2, 2013, decision of an
14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cui’s application for
15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Cui, No.
17 A088 822 631 (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), aff’g No. A088 822 631
18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 2, 2013). We assume the parties’
19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
20 in this case.
21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
22 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
23 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
24 applicable standards of review are well established.
2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
4 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
5 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must
6 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable,
7 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
8 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show
9 either that he would be singled out for persecution or that
10 the country of removal has a pattern or practice of
11 persecuting those similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R.
12 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The agency was not compelled to find
13 that Cui demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in
14 China on account of his intentions to practice his Christian
15 faith in an unregistered church and to proselytize.
16 The IJ reasonably found that the country conditions
17 evidence in the record established that between fifty and
18 seventy million Christians practice in unregistered churches
19 in China, and that in some areas such practice was tolerated
20 without interference. Therefore, the IJ did not err in
21 determining that Cui failed to demonstrate “systemic or
3
1 pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians
2 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of
3 persecution in China. In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741
4 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Santoso v.
5 Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (denying
6 petition where agency considered background materials and
7 rejected pattern-or-practice claim).
8 The IJ also reasonably found that Cui failed to
9 establish an objectively reasonable fear of being singled
10 out for persecution. Cui did not assert that Chinese
11 officials are aware of his religious practice. And, given
12 the tens of millions of unregistered Christian practitioners
13 in China, he did not demonstrate that Chinese officials are
14 likely to discover his practice as required. See Hongsheng
15 Leng v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
16 Furthermore, although the record evidence establishes that
17 public proselytizing is not permitted in China, it does not
18 establish that practitioners, such as Cui, who proselytize
19 face harm rising to the level of persecution.
20 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that
21 Cui failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
4
1 persecution, it did not err in denying asylum, withholding
2 of removal, and CAT relief because those claims were based
3 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444
4 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
5
