Filed: Apr. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 12-4620 Liu v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A088 378 218 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: 12-4620 Liu v. Holder BIA Chew, IJ A088 378 218 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
12-4620
Liu v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A088 378 218
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 11th day of April, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 QUANWEN LIU, AKA ZHAO WU ZHOU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-4620
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Adedayo O. Idowu, Esq., New York,
24 New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Erica B. Miles, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jesse Lloyd
29 Busen, Trial Attorney, 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 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Quanwen Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of an October 24, 2012,
7 order of the BIA affirming the October 18, 2010, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew, which denied his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Quanwen
11 Liu, No. A088 378 218 (B.I.A. Oct. 24, 2012), aff’g No. A088
12 378 218 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 18, 2010). 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 have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8
19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510,
20 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 An individual is not per se eligible for asylum based
22 on the forced abortion or sterilization of a spouse or
23 partner because “applicants can become candidates for asylum
2
1 relief only based on persecution that they themselves have
2 suffered or must suffer.” Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
3 Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir. 2007). In the absence
4 of per se persecution based on his wife’s abortion, Liu must
5 show “other resistance to a coercive population control
6 program” and that he was persecuted as a result of that
7 resistance. See
id.
8 Even assuming that hiding his wife from authorities
9 constituted “other resistance,” Liu’s claim that the
10 confiscation of his boat constituted persecution fails, as
11 he has not shown that he suffered “the deliberate imposition
12 of a substantial economic disadvantage.” Guan Shan Liao v.
13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002)
14 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Further, his
15 alleged emotional distress as a result of his wife’s forced
16 abortion does not rise to the level of persecution.
17 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
433 F.3d 332, 342, 341
18 (2d Cir. 2006) (differentiating between emotional pain from
19 “physical abuse and violence,” and holding that even
20 “substantial emotional distress” generally does not amount
21 to persecution); see also Tao Jiang v. Gonzales,
500 F.3d
22 137, 141-43 (2d Cir. 2007).
3
1 Liu also argues that he has demonstrated a well-founded
2 fear of future persecution. “[T]o establish a well-founded
3 fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of past
4 persecution, an alien must make some showing 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 The basis for Liu’s future persecution claim is that he
10 began to practice Falun Gong in the United States, and he
11 feared he would be persecuted and jailed if he returned to
12 China because he attended a Falun Gong demonstration in
13 Washington, D.C., in 2010. However, Liu’s conclusory claim,
14 that the Chinese government is likely to become aware of his
15 participation in a demonstration because it monitors such
16 events, is speculative and insufficient to show an
17 objectively reasonable fear of future harm. Kyaw Zwar Tun
18 v. INS,
445 F.3d 554, 565 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Jian Xing
19 Huang v. United States INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
20 (holding that “absent solid support in the record” a fear of
21 persecution is “speculative at best”).
22
4
1 Because Liu has not established either past persecution
2 or a well-founded fear of future persecution, the agency did
3 not err in denying his application for asylum. See 8 C.F.R.
4 § 1208.13(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178
5 (2d Cir. 2004). Moreover, because Liu was unable to show
6 the objective fear of persecution needed to make out an
7 asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher
8 standard required to succeed on a claim for withholding of
9 removal or CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder,
616 F.3d 111,
10 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
13 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
14
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
19
5
