Tian Ping Chen v. Holder , 409 F. App'x 487 ( 2011 )

09-3102-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A098 690 719
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 A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 15 th day of February, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
TIAN PING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v. 09-3102-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Tina Howe, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Blair T. O’Connor,
Assistant Director; Ari Nazarov,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation; U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Tian Ping Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, seeks review of a June 29, 2009, decision
of the BIA affirming the October 18, 2007, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy Hom, who denied Chen’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tian
Ping Chen, No. A098 690 719 (B.I.A. June 29, 2009), aff’g
No. A098 690 719 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 18, 2007). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237(2d Cir.
2008)(internal quotation marks omitted). The applicable
standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(b)(4)(B); Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.
2008); see also Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).
2
The agency did not err in finding that, even if
credible, Chen did not meet his burden of proving his
eligibility for relief. An individual is not per se
eligible for asylum based on the forced abortion or
sterilization of a spouse, Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), and
Chen does not argue in his brief that he fears being
forcibly sterilized in the future. Thus, Chen’s sole
remaining claim is that he suffered economic persecution
when he was fired from his job because of “other resistance”
to China’s birth control policy – his refusal to be
sterilized. However, in order to constitute economic
persecution, the economic harm must be “severe,” such that
it would “constitute a threat to an individual’s life or
freedom.” See In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 172 (BIA
2007)(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Guan Shan
Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 67 (2d Cir.
2002) (holding that in order to demonstrate economic
persecution, an applicant must show at least a “deliberate
imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage”).
Because Chen testified that after being fired from his job
at a government-owned construction company, he was able to
3
support himself and his family through odd jobs, the agency
reasonably found that Chen failed to demonstrate economic
persecution. See Guan Shan Liao, 293 F.3d at 67.
Because Chen was unable to show the objective evidence
of future persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, he
was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required
to succeed on his withholding of removal claim. See Paul v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). As Chen does
not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief, any
challenge to his CAT claim is waived.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4