Filed: Dec. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 17-516 Liu v. Whitaker BIA Hom, IJ A205 050 448 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: 17-516 Liu v. Whitaker BIA Hom, IJ A205 050 448 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
17-516
Liu v. Whitaker
BIA
Hom, IJ
A205 050 448
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19th day of December, two thousand
5 eighteen.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 John M. Walker, Jr.,
9 Robert D. Sack,
10 Reena Raggi,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 BO LIU,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 17-516
18 NAC
19
20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas D. Barra, New York, NY.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy
28 Assistant Attorney General; Keith
29 I. McManus, Assistant Director;
30 Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office
31 of Immigration Litigation, United
32 States Department of Justice,
33 Washington, DC.
34
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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Bo Liu, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 23, 2017,
7 decision of the BIA affirming a March 11, 2016, decision of
8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum, withholding
9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Bo Liu, No. A205 050 448 (B.I.A. Jan. 23,
11 2017), aff’g No. A205 050 448 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 11,
12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the
16 timeliness and adverse credibility findings the BIA declined
17 to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426
18 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The only issue before us is
19 Liu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of persecution in
20 China on account of his participation in three pro-Falun Gong
21 and pro-democracy protests in the United States. The
22 applicable standards of review are well established. See
23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey,
528 F.3d
24 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
3 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must
4 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable,
5 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
6 The applicant “must make some showing that authorities in his
7 country of nationality are either aware of his activities or
8 likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng,
9 528 F.3d at 143.
10 Liu did not assert that Chinese officials are aware of
11 his attendance at protests in the United States.
12 Furthermore, the agency was not compelled to conclude that
13 Chinese officials are likely to become aware of (or be
14 interested in) Liu’s protest activities in the United
15 States based solely on the publication of his photograph
16 attending such protests in 2011 and 2012. See Y.C. v.
17 Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 334, 336-37 (2d Cir. 2013). Indeed,
18 we have rejected as “most unlikely” the suggestion “that
19 the Chinese government is aware of every anti-Communist or
20 pro-democracy piece of commentary published online” and
21 found speculative claims that the Chinese government may
22 discover a few articles or pictures published on the
23 internet years earlier. See
id. at 334 (citing Jian Xing
24 Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam)
3
1 (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . ., [an
2 applicant’s] fear is speculative at best”)).
3 Because Liu failed to satisfy his burden of proof that
4 Chinese authorities are aware, or likely to become aware, of
5 his participation in protests, the agency did not err in
6 concluding that he failed to establish a well-founded fear of
7 persecution. See Hongsheng Leng, 528 F.3d at 142-43. That
8 finding was dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal,
9 and CAT relief because all three claims were based on the
10 same factual predicate. Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-
11 57 (2d Cir. 2006).
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
22 Clerk of Court
23
4
