Filed: Feb. 11, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 09-1644-ag Chen v. Holder BIA DeFonzo, IJ A099 677 405 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
Summary: 09-1644-ag Chen v. Holder BIA DeFonzo, IJ A099 677 405 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..
More
09-1644-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
DeFonzo, IJ
A099 677 405
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 11 th day of February, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 WEN FA CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1644-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
20 JUSTICE,
21 Respondents.
22 _________________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Pro Se.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
28 Assistant Director, Yanal Yousef,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 Wen Fa Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of the March 26, 2009, order
7 of the BIA, affirming the July 26, 2007, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo, which denied his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wen Fa
11 Chen, No. A099 677 405 (B.I.A. Mar. 26, 2009), aff’g No.
12 A099 677 405 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 26, 2007). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417
17 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of
18 review are well-established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
19 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 Even construing his pro se brief broadly, as we must,
21 see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
470 F.3d 471, 474
22 (2d Cir. 2006), Chen has failed to meaningfully challenge
2
1 the agency’s denial of his application for asylum,
2 withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
3 The agency found that Chen did not meet his burden of
4 establishing eligibility for relief based on the alleged
5 persecution that his wife experienced (i.e., her forced IUD
6 insertion and forced abortion) or his own alleged “other
7 resistance” to China’s family planning policy. In addition,
8 the BIA found that Chen’s fear of future persecution based
9 on his wife’s hypothetical future pregnancy was too
10 speculative to merit relief. Chen’s brief fails to
11 challenge these findings, touching upon them only in a
12 single sentence, stating that he “disagree[s]” with the
13 BIA’s and IJ’s decisions and that he “thinks the fact that
14 [his] wife was forced to undergo an abortion ... and that
15 the government threatened [him] with arrest due to [his]
16 political opinion in opposition to the coercive family
17 planning policy makes [his] asylum claim well established.”
18 Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are
19 considered waived and normally will not be addressed on
20 appeal in the absence of manifest injustice. Yueqing Zhang
21 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
22 Here, no manifest injustice would result.
3
1 Indeed, even if Chen’s pro se brief could be construed
2 to have challenged the BIA’s decision, his argument fails.
3 With respect to his past persecution claim, Chen was not
4 entitled to relief on account of his wife’s forced abortion.
5 See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d
6 Cir. 2007) (en banc). As to Chen’s fear of future
7 persecution, the BIA did not err in finding it impermissibly
8 speculative to the extent it was based on the hypothetical
9 birth of a second child in violation of Chinese law. See
10 Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. Having completed our review, we DISMISS the
13 petitioner's pending motion for a stay of removal as moot.
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
17
18
4
