Filed: Feb. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 11-1241-ag Jiang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A098 714 586 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: 11-1241-ag Jiang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A098 714 586 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
11-1241-ag
Jiang v. Holder
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A098 714 586
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 24th day of February, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 AI YOU JIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-1241-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York,
24 New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
28 Director; Jeffrey J. Bernstein,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Ai You Jiang,1 a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2011,
11 order of the BIA, affirming the June 24, 2009, decision of
12 the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jiang’s application for
13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aiyou Jiang, No.
15 A098 714 586 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2011), aff’g No. A098 714 586
16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 24, 2009). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for
20 the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233,
21 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are
22 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
23 v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
1
Although the spelling in the agency proceedings is
Aiyou Jiang, because Jiang uses Ai You Jiang in all of his
filings in this Court we also use Ai You Jiang.
2
1 Jiang argues that he met his burden of proof for CAT
2 relief by presenting evidence that individuals returned to
3 China from the United States are detained and that torture
4 is widespread in Chinese prisons.2 The agency reasonably
5 found that Jiang’s evidence was insufficient to meet his
6 burden because Jiang relied on generalized evidence
7 concerning the treatment of prisoners and submitted no
8 particularized evidence whatsoever to indicate that
9 individuals who are returned from the United States are
10 tortured in detention. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
11 Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2005). Indeed, like the
12 documents submitted in Mu Xiang Lin and Mu-Xing Wang v.
13 Ashcroft,
320 F.3d 130, 144 n.21 (2d Cir. 2003), the
14 documents Jiang submitted “by no means establish that
15 prisoners in [the petitioner’s] circumstances –
16 namely, . . . unlawful emigrants – are ‘more likely than not
17 to be tortured.’” Mu-Xing
Wang, 320 F.3d at 144 n.21; see
18 also Mu Xiang
Lin, 432 F.3d at 160-61.
19 Furthermore, despite Jiang’s argument to the contrary,
20 the testimony offered by Professor Rojek, who last visited
2
Jiang has not sought review of the BIA’s denial of
his application for asylum and withholding of removal
relief.
3
1 China in 1994, failed to identify any specific incident of
2 torture or any individual returnee who had been tortured.
3 The BIA therefore reasonably declined to give that testimony
4 prevailing weight. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
5 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 Finally, Jiang’s argument that the Seventh Circuit’s
7 holding in Yi-Tu Lian v. Ashcroft,
379 F.3d 457 (7th Cir.
8 2004) supercedes this Court’s holding in Mu Xiang Lin is
9 unavailing as this Court is not bound by a holding of
10 another circuit. Moreover, Jiang misunderstands Yi-Tu Lian.
11 There, the Seventh Circuit remanded the case because the IJ
12 failed completely to consider the evidence. The holding of
13 Yi-Tu Lian, that a petitioner may establish his CAT claim
14 using evidence pertaining to similarly situated individuals,
15 is consistent with this Court’s holdings in Mu Xiang Lin and
16 Mu-Xing Wang.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
