Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-238 Hiang v. Lynch BIA Videla, IJ A088 533 363 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: 13-238 Hiang v. Lynch BIA Videla, IJ A088 533 363 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
13-238
Hiang v. Lynch
BIA
Videla, IJ
A088 533 363
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 24th day of November, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LIM HWEE HIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-238
17 NAC
18
19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Lim Hwee Hiang, Pro Se, Flushing,
25 New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant
29 Director; Kristen Giuffreda
1 Chapman, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
9 DENIED.
10 Petitioner Lim Hwee Hiang, a native and citizen of
11 Singapore, seeks review of a January 8, 2013, decision of the
12 BIA affirming a March 17, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge
13 (“IJ”) denying Hiang’s application for asylum, withholding of
14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
15 (“CAT”). In re Lim Hwee Hiang, No. A088 533 363 (B.I.A. Jan.
16 8, 2013), aff’g No. A088 533 363 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 17,
17 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
18 facts and procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
20 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v.
21 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
2 Cir. 2009).
3 Hiang applied for asylum and related relief based on a claim
4 that she had been persecuted in Singapore and feared future
5 persecution because she practiced Falun Gong and had been
6 critical of Singapore’s government. As the agency found, Hiang
7 did not demonstrate past persecution because she testified that
8 she was never harmed or threatened in Singapore. See 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1101(a)(42)(A); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433
10 F.3d 332, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006).
11 Furthermore, the agency did not err in finding that Hiang
12 failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
13 persecution. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178
14 (2d Cir. 2004). While Hiang testified that she had sent an
15 email critical of the government to other Falun Gong
16 practitioners, and that email was forwarded to a list serve,
17 she also conceded that she had no evidence that Singapore’s
18 government intercepted the email or even was aware of it. See
19 Y.C. v. Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 333-34 (2d Cir. 2013); Jian Xing
20 Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005).
3
1 Because Hiang did not show that anyone in Singapore was
2 aware of either her practice of Falun Gong or her criticism of
3 the government, or sought to harm her, the agency did not err
4 in finding that she did not establish a well-founded fear of
5 future persecution. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
6 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, because Hiang was unable
7 to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make
8 out an asylum claim, she was necessarily unable to meet the
9 higher standard required to succeed on her claims for
10 withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder,
11
616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
14 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
15 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
16 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
17 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
18 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
19 34.1(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
