Filed: Aug. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 12-4440 Lin v. Holder BIA Videla, IJ A094 922 033 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 NOTAT
Summary: 12-4440 Lin v. Holder BIA Videla, IJ A094 922 033 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 NOTATI..
More
12-4440
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Videla, IJ
A094 922 033
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 26th day of August, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YIE LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-4440
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New
24 Jersey.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
28 Director; Theodore C. Hirt, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel, 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 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 Yie Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
6 of China, seeks review of an October 11, 2012, decision of
7 the BIA affirming an April 14, 2011, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yie Lin, No. A094
11 922 033 (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012), aff’g No. A094 922 033
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 14, 2011). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
17 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
18 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
20 Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Lin asserted eligibility for asylum based on fines
22 imposed for his violation of the family planning policy and
2
1 his wife’s forced sterilization. The agency reasonably
2 rejected Lin’s past persecution claim. Lin cannot claim
3 past persecution based on his wife’s forced sterilization.
4 See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296,
5 309-10 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that applicant is not
6 eligible for asylum based on forcible sterilization
7 undergone by spouse; emotional loss individual may suffer
8 following spouse’s involuntary sterilization does not
9 constitute persecution). The IJ also reasonably concluded
10 that the fines did not rise to the level of persecution
11 because Lin failed to provide any evidence establishing that
12 the fines caused him “severe economic disadvantage.” Matter
13 of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170-75 (BIA 2007); see also
14 Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice,
293 F.3d 61, 70
15 (2d Cir. 2002).
16 Contrary to Lin’s argument, the IJ applied the correct
17 standard of review in analyzing his fear of future
18 persecution based on his Falun Gong practice. Although the
19 BIA did not parse Lin’s argument, remand for consideration
20 of this argument is futile. The IJ did not, as Lin
21 contends, improperly hold Lin to a higher burden of proof.
22 See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey,
529 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2008)
3
1 (finding that remand is futile when the Court can
2 confidently “predict that the agency would reach the same
3 decision absent the errors that were made” (internal
4 quotation marks and citations omitted)). Nor did the agency
5 err in concluding that Lin failed to establish a well-
6 founded fear of persecution on account of his practice of
7 Falun Gong. Given his testimony that he would only practice
8 Falun Gong within his own home, Lin did not demonstrate
9 “that authorities in [China] are either aware of his
10 activities or likely to become aware of his activities.”
11 Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
12 Because Lin was unable to show the objective fear of
13 persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he was also
14 unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed on a
15 claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Lecaj
16 v. Holder,
616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010)(“Withholding
17 of removal and CAT relief entail a greater likelihood of
18 future persecution than that required for the grant of
19 asylum.”).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED.
22 FOR THE COURT:
23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
24
25
4
