Filed: Jan. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-1442 Lin v. Whitaker BIA Vomacka, IJ A088 782 781 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 NO
Summary: 15-1442 Lin v. Whitaker BIA Vomacka, IJ A088 782 781 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 NOT..
More
15-1442
Lin v. Whitaker
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A088 782 781
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 23rd day of January, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 HUIZHEN LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-1442
17 NAC
18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gang Zhou, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
26 Assistant Deputy Attorney General;
27 Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation
28 Counsel; Colette J. Winston, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
1 Litigation, United States
2 Department of Justice, Washington,
3 D.C.
4
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
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Huizhen Lin, a native and citizen of the
10 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an April 20, 2015,
11 decision of the BIA affirming the April 12, 2013, decision of
12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for
13 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
14 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Huizhen Lin, No.
15 A088 782 781 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2015), aff’g No. A088 782 781
16 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’
17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
18 of this case.
19 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed both the IJ’s
20 and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.”
21 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
22 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
23 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui
24 Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
07152016-9
1 Lin asserted a fear of future persecution on account of
2 the births of her children in the United States in violation
3 of China’s population control program and her religion.
4 For largely the same reasons as this Court set forth in
5 Jian Hui Shao, we find no error in the agency’s determination
6 that Lin failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
7 persecution based on her purported violation of China’s
8 population control program. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at
9 158-72. And the agency did not err in finding that Lin failed
10 to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account
11 of her religion because she did not submit evidence that
12 Chinese authorities are aware or likely to become aware of
13 her religious practice. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528
14 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
15 The agency’s determination that Lin failed to demonstrate
16 a well-founded fear of persecution is dispositive of asylum,
17 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v.
18 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly,
19 we do not consider the agency’s alternative basis
20 (credibility) for denying relief. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
21 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies
3
07152016-9
1 are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
2 which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
07152016-9
