Filed: Feb. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-912 Shi v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A205 826 082 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
Summary: 16-912 Shi v. Whitaker BIA Poczter, IJ A205 826 082 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 NOTA..
More
16-912
Shi v. Whitaker
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A205 826 082
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 1st day of February, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YUMEI SHI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-912
17 NAC
18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon; Deborah
24 Niedermeyer, Of Counsel, On the
25 Brief, Law Office of Yee Ling
26 Poon, LLC, New York, NY.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal
29 Deputy Assistant Attorney General;
30 Terri J. Scadron, Assistant
06152016-10
1 Director; Wendy Benner-León, Trial
2 Attorney, Office of Immigration
3 Litigation, United States
4 Department of Justice, Washington,
5 DC.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DENIED.
11 Petitioner Yumei Shi, a native and citizen of the
12 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 29,
13 2016, BIA decision that affirmed the October 16, 2014,
14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum,
15 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yumei Shi, No. A205 826 082
17 (B.I.A. Feb. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A205 826 082 (Immig. Ct.
18 N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity
19 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
20 Under these circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s
21 decision as modified by the BIA’s decision, i.e., minus the
22 CAT claim the BIA found waived. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
23 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The
24 applicable standards of review are well established. See
25 Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
07102018-7
1 Shi applied for asylum and withholding of removal,
2 asserting a fear of persecution based on the birth of her
3 three children in China and one child in the United States in
4 violation of China’s population control program. For largely
5 the same reasons as set forth in Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, we
6 find no error in the agency’s determination that Shi failed
7 to satisfy her burden for asylum and withholding of removal.
8 See id. at 158-67; see also Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148,
9 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). As with the evidence in Jian Hui
10 Shao, the evidence in Shi’s case, including her testimony and
11 supporting letters, demonstrates that family planning
12 officials in Fujian Province use fines and economic
13 incentives to pressure couples to comply with the birth
14 control measures, abortions, and sterilizations required by
15 the policy. See Jian Hui
Shao, 546 F.3d at 159-66, 169. The
16 agency also reasonably found Shi’s claimed fear of forced
17 sterilization diminished by the fact that she and her husband
18 remained unharmed in China for years after violating the
19 family planning policy. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191
20 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding claimed fear of future
21 persecution weakened when similarly situated family members
22 remain unharmed in petitioner’s native country).
3
07102018-7
1 Because the agency did not err in finding that Shi failed
2 to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, we need not
3 reach the agency’s alternative determination that, even if
4 her fear of persecution in Fujian Province was well-founded,
5 she could safely relocate to Shanghai to avoid harm. See
6 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
7 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies
8 are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
9 which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED.
12 FOR THE COURT:
13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
14 Clerk of Court
4
07102018-7
