Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-1730 Lin v. Lynch BIA Abrams, IJ A098 230 362 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
Summary: 14-1730 Lin v. Lynch BIA Abrams, IJ A098 230 362 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..
More
14-1730
Lin v. Lynch
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A098 230 362
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 14th day of January, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YI TU LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-1730
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, New
24 Jersey.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Daniel
28 E. Goldman, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel; Todd Cochran, Trial
1 Attorney, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, United States
3 Department of Justice, Washington,
4 D.C.
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Yi Tu Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
10 Republic of China, seeks review of a May 1, 2014, decision of
11 the BIA affirming a November 1, 2011, decision of an immigration
12 judge (“IJ”) denying Lin’s application for asylum and
13 withholding of removal. In re Yi Tu Lin, No. A098 230 362
14 (B.I.A. May 1, 2014), aff’g No. A098 230 362 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.
15 City Nov. 1, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with
16 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the
18 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
19 Dep’t of Justice,
426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because
20 the BIA did not adopt or affirm the IJ’s adverse credibility
21 determination, that finding is not before this Court.
Id. The
22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
2
1 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510,
2 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
3 Lin alleges a fear that Chinese authorities will persecute
4 him if he returns to China because of his practice of
5 Christianity. However, the agency did not err in concluding
6 that Lin’s fear was not objectively reasonable. Lin did not
7 allege past persecution, and thus was required either to show
8 that he would be singled out individually for persecution, or
9 that the Chinese government engages in a pattern or practice
10 of persecuting similarly situated persons. 8 C.F.R.
11 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). He submitted no evidence that he would
12 be singled out individually for persecution, that is, he did
13 not assert that Chinese authorities are aware of his practice
14 of Christianity.
15 Nor did Lin establish a pattern or practice of persecution
16 of similarly situated individuals. A pattern or practice is
17 the “systemic or pervasive” persecution of a group. In re A-M-,
18 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005). The record contains
19 some evidence showing that Christians are persecuted, but it
20 also contains ample evidence suggesting that the targeting is
21 localized and not systemic throughout China. Accordingly, the
3
1 agency did not err in finding that Lin’s pattern or practice
2 claim failed. See Siewe v. Gonzales,
480 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir.
3 2007) (factfinder’s choice between two permissible views of the
4 evidence cannot be clearly erroneous); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
5
546 F.3d 138, 142, 149, 169-72 (2d Cir. 2008) (no error in BIA’s
6 evidentiary framework requiring applicant to show persecution
7 in his local area where punishment varies by region). Further,
8 Lin’s testimony that his pastor was proselytizing in China, and
9 had safely made such a trip before, undercuts his claim that
10 the Chinese government generally persecutes people similarly
11 situated to Lin, i.e., members, not leaders, of underground
12 churches.
13 Since Lin did not meet his lower burden of establishing
14 eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard
15 required to show entitlement to withholding of removal. See
16 Jian Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 156.
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
4
1 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
3 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5