Filed: May 25, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-693-ag Lian v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A088 753 455 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 N
Summary: 11-693-ag Lian v. Holder BIA Vomacka, IJ A088 753 455 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..
More
11-693-ag
Lian v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A088 753 455
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 25th day of May, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LI HUI LIAN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-693-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Norman Kwai Wing Wong, New York, New
24 York
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
28 Director; Virginia Lum, Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 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 Li Hui Lian, a native and citizen of China, seeks
6 review of a January 26, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming
7 the July 16, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan
8 A. Vomacka, which denied her application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Li Hui Lian, No. A088 753
11 455 (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2011), aff’g No. A088 753 455 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City July 16, 2009). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ's and BIA’s decisions. See Yan Chen v.
17 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey,
534 F.3d
20 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Bah v. Mukasey, 529
21 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
22
2
1 The agency reasonably determined that Lian had not
2 established a well-founded fear of persecution based on her
3 Christian faith because, as a recent convert to
4 Christianity, she did not show that she was a church leader,
5 or that her religious practice or preaching would come to
6 the attention of Chinese authorities. See Hongsheng Leng v.
7 Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ("Put
8 simply, to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in
9 the absence of any evidence of past persecution, an alien
10 must make some showing that authorities in his country of
11 nationality are either aware of his activities or likely to
12 become aware of his activities."); see also Huang v. INS,
13 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (providing
14 that a fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks "solid
15 support" in the record and is merely "speculative at best").
16 The agency also reasonably determined that Lian failed to
17 establish a pattern or practice of the persecution of
18 Christians in China because the treatment of Christians
19 varied by region. See Santoso v. Holder,
580 F.3d 110, 112
20 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (affirming an IJ's conclusion
21 "that religious violence in Indonesia was occurring on a
22 very localized basis and was not countrywide" in rejecting
3
1 the claim that there is a pattern or practice of persecution
2 of Chinese Christians in Indonesia (internal quotation marks
3 omitted)).
4 Because Lian failed to establish her eligibility for
5 asylum, she necessarily was unable to meet the higher
6 standard to establish her eligibility for withholding of
7 removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
8 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
9 Further, the agency did not err by denying her CAT
10 claim on the grounds that she had illegally departed from
11 China because she offered no particularized evidence that
12 she would be tortured if she returned to China. See Lin v.
13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
432 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir 2005)
14 ("Because petitioner presents no particularized evidence
15 suggesting that she is likely to be subjected to torture in
16 Chinese prisons, we hold that she cannot make out a
17 successful claim under the United Nations Convention Against
18 Torture.").
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
21 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
22 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
4
1 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
2 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
3 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
7
8
5
