Filed: Aug. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: 11-821 Yang v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A078 222 617 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 NOTATIO
Summary: 11-821 Yang v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A078 222 617 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..
More
11-821
Yang v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A078 222 617
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 15th day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 MIN YANG,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 11-821
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: WaiSim M. Cheung, Tsoi and
25 Associates, New York, New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Mary Jane Candaux,
05212012-29
1 Assistant Branch Director; Matthew
2 A. Connelly, Trial Attorney, Office
3 of Immigration Litigation, United
4 States Department of Justice,
5 Washington, D.C.
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
8 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
9 review is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Min Yang seeks review of a February 3, 2011,
11 decision of the BIA affirming the October 22, 2008, decision
12 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, denying her
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Min
15 Yang, No. A078 222 617 (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2011), aff’g No. A078
16 222 617 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 22, 2008). We assume the
17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history of this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey,
21 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards
22 of review are well-established. See Jian Hui Shao v.
23 Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
24 Yang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
25 China, sought relief from removal based on her assertion
05212012-29 2
1 that she fears persecution because she has had more than one
2 child in the United States, which they contend is in
3 violation of China’s population control program and because
4 she is Catholic. For largely the same reasons as this Court
5 set forth in Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d 138, we find no error
6 in the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal,
7 and CAT relief insofar as those claims were based on Yang’s
8 fear of persecution under China’s population control
9 program. See
id. at 158-72.
10 With respect to Yang’s religion claim, contrary to her
11 contention, the BIA did not review de novo the IJ’s factual
12 findings when it found clearly erroneous the IJ’s factual
13 determination that Yang’s continued practice of Catholicism
14 in China was speculative, but nevertheless agreed with the
15 IJ’s dispositive determination that Yang did not
16 demonstrate, as a matter of law, an objectively reasonable
17 fear that she would be persecuted in China on account of her
18 religion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3); see also Hui Lin
19 Huang v. Holder, Nos. 10-1263 (L), 11-3584(Con), --- F.3d --
20 --,
2012 WL 1003506, at *4 (2d Cir. Mar. 27, 2012) (“The BIA
21 [] is on sound ground in its view that de novo review
22 applies to the ultimate question of whether the applicant
23 has sustained her burden to establish that her subjective
05212012-29 3
1 fear of persecution is objectively reasonable.”). Moreover,
2 the agency reasonably found that Yang failed to show that
3 members of unregistered Catholic groups face persecution in
4 Fujian Province, or that Chinese authorities were aware of,
5 or were likely to become aware of, her practice of
6 Catholicism. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135,
7 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending
10 request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
11 accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
12 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
05212012-29 4
