Filed: Feb. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 11-632-ag Jiang v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A073 488 935 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 T
Summary: 11-632-ag Jiang v. Holder BIA Balasquide, IJ A073 488 935 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 TH..
More
11-632-ag
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Balasquide, IJ
A073 488 935
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 8th day of February, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 JIN QI JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-632-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
27 Director; Genevieve Holm, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 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 Jin Qi Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 21, 2011 order
7 of the BIA, affirming the December 17, 2008 decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Javier Balasquide, which denied his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jin Qi
11 Jiang, No. A073 488 935 (B.I.A. Jan. 21, 2011), aff’g No.
12 A073 488 935 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 17, 2008). We assume
13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue
17 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d
18 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
20 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 The sole argument Jiang raises before this Court is
22 that the BIA erred by failing to appropriately evaluate his
23 claim of economic persecution. Although Jiang failed to
2
1 raise this argument before the agency, we consider the issue
2 exhausted because the BIA explicitly addressed it in its
3 decision. See Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 102, 112
4 n.7 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing with approval Xian Tuan Ye v.
5 DHS,
446 F.3d 289, 296-97 (2d Cir. 2006); Waldron v. INS, 17
6 F.3d 511, 515 n.7 (2d Cir. 1994)).
7 Here, the BIA reasonably found that Jiang failed to
8 demonstrate that the fines imposed by family planning
9 officials following the birth of his children did not
10 constitute economic persecution. See In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N.
11 Dec. 163, 173 (BIA 2007) (holding that for economic harm to
12 constitute persecution, “an applicant for asylum must
13 demonstrate a severe economic disadvantage”). First, Jiang
14 failed to demonstrate that he suffered a severe economic
15 disadvantage resulting from his having to pay the 2,000
16 renminbi (“RMB”) fine following the birth of his first
17 child, testifying only that he paid the fine in full using
18 funds he borrowed from his neighbors and relatives.
19 Moreover, although Jiang testified that he “didn’t have the
20 money” to pay the 5,000 RMB fine that was assessed following
21 the birth of his second child, he did not present any
22 evidence or testimony of his personal financial situation or
3
1 income at the time, which would support his contention that
2 he suffered a severe economic disadvantage due to the
3 imposition of this fine. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t.
4 of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002).
5 Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied Jiang’s
6 application for asylum. Because he failed to meet the
7 burden of asylum, Jiang necessarily failed to meet the
8 higher burden for withholding of removal, as that claim was
9 based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
10
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
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
21
22
4
