Filed: Jul. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-2611-ag Tang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A095 716 892 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
Summary: 10-2611-ag Tang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A095 716 892 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
10-2611-ag
Tang v. Holder
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A095 716 892
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 21st day of July, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 YAN ZHU TANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-2611-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Luis E. Perez, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Ari Nazarov,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 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 Yan Zhu Tang, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of a June 4, 2010, decision of the BIA
7 affirming the May 30, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert denying her application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yan Zhu Tang, No.
11 A095 716 892 (B.I.A. June 4, 2010), aff’g No. A095 716 892
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 30, 2008). 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 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang
17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
18 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Because Tang has not challenged the agency’s denial of
22 CAT relief and concedes her lack of eligibility for relief
2
1 based on her prior fear of forced marriage, we address only
2 the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal
3 with respect to Tang’s political activities in the United
4 States. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541
5 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (providing that issues not
6 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and
7 normally will not be addressed on appeal).
8 Tang argues that she established a well-founded fear of
9 future persecution on account of her participation in the
10 China Democracy Party while in the United States. However,
11 the burden was on Tang to establish that her fear of
12 persecution was objectively reasonable, see Ramsameachire v.
13 Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004), and substantial
14 evidence supports the agency’s finding that she did not meet
15 that burden. The evidence Tang submitted of human rights
16 conditions in China indicates that the prominent leaders of
17 pro-democracy movements outside of China and political
18 dissidents within China have been persecuted. However, as
19 the agency found, their persecution does not establish that
20 Tang is also at risk of persecution if she returned to China
21 because she has been only a low-level activist outside of
22 China. As the record does not establish that people
3
1 similarly situated to Tang have been persecuted by the
2 Chinese government, the agency’s conclusion that she does
3 not have a well-founded fear of future persecution is
4 supported by substantial evidence. See Hongsheng Leng v.
5 Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the
6 agency did not err in denying her application for asylum and
7 withholding of removal. See
Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178.
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
18
19
4
