Filed: Jan. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-4206 Huang v. Lynch BIA Hom, IJ A087 737 207 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: 14-4206 Huang v. Lynch BIA Hom, IJ A087 737 207 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
14-4206
Huang v. Lynch
BIA
Hom, IJ
A087 737 207
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 13th day of January, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YING YING HUANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-4206
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
27 Assistant Attorney General; Shelley
28 R. Goad, Assistant Director; Julia
29 J. Tyler, 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Ying Ying Huang, a native and citizen of
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 17, 2014,
7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 16, 2012, decision of
8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Huang’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ying Ying Huang, No. A087 737
11 207 (B.I.A. Oct. 17, 2014), aff’g No. A087 737 207 (Immig. Ct.
12 N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity
13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
19
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Dedji v. Mukasey,
525 F.3d
20 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
2 that Huang failed to establish a well-founded fear of harm at
3 the hand of smugglers in China. Absent past persecution, an
4 applicant may establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating
5 a well-founded fear of future persecution, 8 C.F.R.
6 § 1208.13(b)(2), which must be both subjectively credible and
7 objectively reasonable, Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d
8 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To demonstrate a well-founded fear,
9 an applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that she
10 would be singled out for persecution or that the country of
11 removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly
12 situated individuals. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
13 As the agency concluded, Huang’s fear of harm was
14 speculative given that she and her family have not been
15 contacted, much less threatened, by smugglers since they paid
16 the fee for Huang’s entry to the United States. See Jian Xing
17 Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence
18 of solid support in the record . . . , [an applicant’s] fear
19 is speculative at best.”). Huang’s failure to demonstrate that
20 her fear of harm was objectively reasonable is dispositive of
21 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three
3
1 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.
2 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly,
3 we do not reach the agency’s alternative bases for denial of
4 asylum and withholding of removal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
5 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are
6 not required to make findings on issues the decision of which
7 is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
8 Furthermore, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in
9 declining to admit Huang’s late-filed evidence because she was
10 given more than one year to file it and the evidence pre-dated
11 the filing deadline. Huang argues that the IJ should have
12 extended the August 2012 deadline because she did not present
13 her new basis for asylum (fear of smugglers) until July 2012.
14 This argument is disingenuous. She did not argue this point
15 to the IJ. And, regardless of when she amended her application
16 to present this new claim, she knew of the bases for it as early
17 as July 2010 and thus had more than two years to gather and timely
18 submit background evidence.
19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
21 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
4
1 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
2 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
3 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
4 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
5 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
