Filed: Apr. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 09-2265-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Bukszpan, IJ A099 670 399 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: 09-2265-ag Chen v. Holder BIA Bukszpan, IJ A099 670 399 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 ..
More
09-2265-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Bukszpan, IJ
A099 670 399
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 22 nd day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 GUIDO CALABRESI,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 JINFHENG CHEN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-2265-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New
25 Jersey.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
29 Director, Imran R. Zaidi, Trial
30 Attorney, Office of Immigration
31 Litigation, Civil Division, United
32 States Department of Justice,
33 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Jinfheng Chen, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 4, 2009,
7 order of the BIA affirming the October 10, 2007, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna Miller Bukszpan, denying his
9 application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re
10 Jinfheng Chen, No. A099 670 399 (B.I.A. May 4, 2009), aff’g
11 No. A099 670 399 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 10, 2007). We
12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
13 and procedural history of the case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
15 BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Jigme Wangchuck v. DHS, 448
16 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of
17 review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
18 Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
19 Chen does not challenge the agency’s finding that his
20 claim based on his wife’s sterilization was foreclosed by
21 this Court’s holding in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
22 Justice,
494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007). With regard to his
2
1 economic persecution claim, the agency did not err in
2 finding that Chen failed to establish his eligibility for
3 relief. We have held that to present a cognizable claim of
4 economic persecution, “an asylum applicant must offer some
5 proof that he suffered a deliberate imposition of
6 substantial economic disadvantage.” Guan Shan Liao v. U.S.
7 Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 69-70 (2d Cir. 2002)
8 (quotation marks omitted). As the IJ found, Chen failed to
9 show that the imposition of a 12,000 RMB fine rose to the
10 level of persecution. In other words, Chen did not show
11 that “[t]he economic difficulties [he faced are] above and
12 beyond those generally shared by others in the country of
13 origin and involve noticeably more than mere loss of social
14 advantages or physical comforts.” See Matter of T-Z-, 24 I.
15 & N. Dec. 163, 170-73 (BIA 2007). We decline to consider
16 Chen’s unexhausted assertion that the IJ erred in her
17 factual findings regarding the fine. See Lin Zhong v. U.S.
18 Dep’t of Justice,
480 F.3d 104, 124 (2d Cir. 2007). Even if
19 we had addressed these arguments, they would not change the
20 outcome here. Whatever errors there may have been in its
21 findings, the agency’s determination that Chen failed to
22 show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
3
1 persecution is supported by the record. See Manzur v. U.S.
2 Dep't of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 Because Chen was unable to show the objective likelihood
4 of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was
5 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to
6 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Paul v.
7 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Gomez v. INS,
8
947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
4
