Filed: Jan. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-2382 Cao v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A205 442 607 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: 15-2382 Cao v. Lynch BIA Poczter, IJ A205 442 607 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
15-2382
Cao v. Lynch
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A205 442 607
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 5th day of January, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 CHENGCHENG CAO,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-2382
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse M.
27 Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel;
28 Colette J. Winston, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 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 Chengcheng Cao, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a July 9, 2015,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a November 25, 2013, decision of
8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cao’s application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chengcheng Cao, No. A205 442
11 607 (B.I.A. July 9, 2015), aff’g No. A205 442 607 (Immig. Ct.
12 N.Y. City Nov. 25, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity
13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
15 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
16 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
19 Cir. 2009).
20 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
21 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of
2
1 future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must be
2 both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable. See
3 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
4 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show either
5 a reasonable possibility that she would be singled out for
6 persecution or that the country of removal has a pattern or
7 practice of persecuting individuals similarly situated to her.
8 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). “[The] alien must make some
9 showing that authorities in h[er] country of nationality are
10 either aware of h[er] activities or likely to become aware of
11 h[er] activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d 135,
12 143 (2d Cir. 2008). Cao failed to establish a well-founded fear
13 of persecution in China on account of her intentions to practice
14 her Christian faith in an unregistered church and to
15 proselytize.
16 The country conditions evidence established that tens of
17 millions of Christians practice in unregistered churches in
18 China and that in some areas religious practices are tolerated
19 without interference. Therefore, despite evidence of sporadic
20 arrests of religious practitioners and public proselytizers,
21 Cao failed to demonstrate “systemic or pervasive” persecution
3
1 of similarly situated Christians who proselytize privately
2 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution
3 in China. See In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 (B.I.A. 2005);
4 see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); Santoso v. Holder, 580
5 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009).
6 Cao also failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear
7 of being singled out for persecution. She did not assert that
8 Chinese officials are aware of her religious practice. See
9 Hongsheng
Leng, 528 F.3d at 143. And, given the tens of
10 millions of unregistered Christian practitioners in China, she
11 did not demonstrate that Chinese officials are likely to
12 discover her religious activities as required to establish an
13 objectively reasonable fear. See
id. Further, Cao did not
14 identify any incidents of religious persecution in her home
15 province. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 143, 149
16 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding no error in the agency’s requirement
17 that an applicant demonstrate a well-founded fear of
18 persecution specific to her local area when persecutory acts
19 vary according to locality).
20 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that Cao
21 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, it
4
1 did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
2 relief because all three claims were based on the same factual
3 predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir.
4 2006).
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
7 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
8 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
9 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
10 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
11 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
12 34.1(b).
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
