Filed: Jul. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-3614-ag Huang v. Holder BIA Morace, IJ A098 561 220 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: 09-3614-ag Huang v. Holder BIA Morace, IJ A098 561 220 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
09-3614-ag
Huang v. Holder
BIA
Morace, IJ
A098 561 220
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 2 nd day of July, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PETER W. HALL,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 WEI HUANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-3614-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Donglai Yang, The Law Offices of
24 Donglai Yang, LLC, New Orleans,
25 Louisiana.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General, Civil Division; Luis E.
29 Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation;
31 Remi Adalemo, Attorney, Office of
32 Immigration Litigation, Civil
33 Division, United States Department
34 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 Petitioner Wei Huang, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 11,
7 2009, order of the BIA affirming the October 31, 2007,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip L. Morace
9 denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
10 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
11 re Wei Huang, No. A098 561 220 (B.I.A. Aug. 11, 2009), aff’g
12 No. A098 561 220 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 31, 2007). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision. See
17 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d
20 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529
21 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 I. Claim Based on Huang’s Wife’s Abortion
2 In concluding that Huang failed to establish either
3 past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
4 persecution based on his wife’s forced abortion, the BIA
5 found that Huang did not establish that he: (1) resisted
6 China’s family planning policy; or (2) was harmed as a
7 result. See Shi Liang Lin v. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d
8 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2007). Although Huang argues that he
9 endured emotional pain rising to the level of persecution as
10 a result of his wife’s abortion, he does not challenge with
11 any specificity the agency’s dispositive findings that he
12 failed to demonstrate that he resisted China’s family
13 planning policy or that any harm he endured resulted from
14 any such resistance. See
id. at 309-10. Thus, the agency
15 reasonably denied his application for asylum on the basis of
16 his family planning claim.
17 II. Claim Based on Huang’s Practice of Falun Gong
18 Huang also argues that he established a well-founded
19 fear of persecution based on his practice of Falun Gong in
20 this country. To establish asylum eligibility based on a
21 fear of future persecution, an applicant must show that he
22 or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is
3
1 objectively reasonable. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d
2 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). When the applicant’s fear of
3 persecution is based on activities undertaken in the United
4 States, he must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that
5 “authorities in his country of nationality are either aware
6 of his activities or likely to become aware of his
7 activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 135, 143
8 (2d Cir. 2008).
9 Huang argues that the agency imposed an incorrect
10 burden on him by looking only at whether the Chinese
11 government was currently aware of his practice of Falun
12 Gong, without addressing whether the government was likely
13 to become aware of that practice. To the contrary, the IJ
14 noted that Huang’s involvement in the Falun Gong movement
15 consisted of attending a single protest and occasionally
16 distributing flyers. Given the minimal extent of Huang’s
17 activities, the IJ reasonably found that Huang’s claim was
18 “speculative and mere conjecture,” requiring a chain of
19 inferences unsupported by the record. Thus, we find no
20 error in the IJ’s determination that Huang failed to meet
21 his burden of proof. See
id.
4
1 Because Huang was unable to meet his burden for asylum,
2 he necessarily failed to meet the higher burden required for
3 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v.
4 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
5
