Filed: Jan. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-2503 Yang v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A087 625 989 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
Summary: 13-2503 Yang v. Lynch BIA Christensen, IJ A087 625 989 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 N..
More
13-2503
Yang v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A087 625 989
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 27th day of January, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 XIANG JIN YANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2503
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,1
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, NY.
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch is
automatically substituted for former Attorney General
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
3 Director; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial
4 Attorney, Office of Immigration
5 Litigation, United States Department
6 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
9 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
10 review is DENIED.
11 Xiang Jin Yang, a native and citizen of China, seeks
12 review of a May 30, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming an
13 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) October 27, 2011, denial of
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiang Jin Yang,
16 No. A087 625 989 (B.I.A. May 30, 2013), aff’g No. A087 625
17 989 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2011). We assume the
18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history of this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
21 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision, i.e.,
22 minus the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that was not
23 affirmed by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of
24 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of
25 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
2
1 see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
2 2009).
3 On appeal, Yang does not raise a claim of past
4 persecution, nor does he argue that he is entitled to relief
5 based upon a family planning policy violation. Accordingly,
6 we address only his alleged fear of future persecution as a
7 Christian.
8 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish asylum
9 eligibility by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future
10 persecution, i.e., “that he subjectively fears persecution
11 and . . . that his fear is objectively reasonable.”
12 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004);
13 see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To constitute
14 persecution, harm must be sufficiently severe, rising above
15 “mere harassment,” and the difference between persecution
16 and harassment must be determined “on a case-by-case basis.”
17 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d
18 Cir. 2006); see also Beskovic v. Gonzales,
467 F.3d 223, 226
19 (2d Cir. 2006). The crux of Yang’s claim is that two
20 members of his unregistered church in China were beaten by
21 police in 2007, and he fled China in 2009 to avoid a similar
22 fate.
3
1 Yang argues that his fear is objectively reasonable
2 because country reports indicate that there is religious
3 persecution in China. The IJ concluded, however, that
4 Yang’s testimony regarding the beatings was not corroborated
5 by other record evidence, including Yang’s own written
6 statement in support of his asylum application.
7 Additionally, as the agency found, neither Yang’s testimony
8 nor his mother’s letter indicated that police had made any
9 threats of harm against Yang. The IJ considered the country
10 reports, moreover, and correctly stated that they reflect,
11 among other things, an estimate by the Pew Research Center
12 “that 50 million to 70 million Christians practice in
13 unregistered religious gatherings and house churches” in
14 China. A.R. 86.
15 Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ’s
16 determination that, while “there exists some amount of
17 persecution for those who attend unaffiliated or underground
18 house churches,” neither the reports nor the record as a
19 whole demonstrates that Yang himself has an objectively
20 reasonable fear of persecution. See Jian Hui Shao v.
21 Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 149-50, 159-60, 163-65 (2d Cir. 2008)
22 (upholding BIA’s analysis that where enforcement of a policy
4
1 varies by region, it is the applicant’s burden to show a
2 well-founded fear of persecution in his locality in China).
3 And without firm support in the record, Yang’s
4 conclusory statements that he fears future persecution are
5 insufficient to establish a well-founded fear of future
6 harm. See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129
7 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that, absent “solid support in the
8 record,” future fear of harm is “speculative at best”).
9 Because Yang has not met his burden for asylum, he
10 “necessarily fails” to meet his burden for withholding of
11 removal and CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder,
616 F.3d 111,
12 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
19
20
5
