Jiang Nai Jin v. Holder , 497 F. App'x 130 ( 2012 )

11-2345-ag BIA
Jiang Nai Jin v. Holder Bukszpan, IJ
A094 803 237
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 25th day of September, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
REENA RAGGI,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
JIANG NAI JIN,
Petitioner,
v. 11-2345-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo &
Fasano, LLP, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director;
Wendy Benner-León, Trial Attorney, Office
of Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States 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.
Petitioner Jiang Nai Jin, a native and citizen of
China, seeks review of a May 11, 2011 decision of the BIA
affirming the May 20, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) Joanna M. Bukszpan denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jiang Nai Jin,
No. A094 803 237 (B.I.A. May 11, 2011), aff’g No. A094 803
237 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. May 20, 2009). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,
513 (2d Cir. 2009).
Jin does not challenge the agency’s findings that he
did not establish past persecution, illegal departure from
China, or a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of
2
smugglers. His only argument is that the agency erred in
concluding that he failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear
of persecution based on his status as an individual
repatriated to China after illegal entry into the United
States. We are not persuaded.
Jin argues that evidence of country conditions
established that returnees from the United States are
subjected to persecution and torture upon return to China.
The agency considered the evidence submitted by Jin—evidence
including a 2007 State Department Profile on Asylum
Claims—and concluded that it indicated that returnees from
the United States are, at most, subjected to brief
detentions. The record does not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 432
F.3d 156, 157-60 (2d Cir. 2005); Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421
F.3d 125, 128 (2d Cir. 2005).
The IJ did not, as Jin claims, err in declining to
afford significant weight to purported expert Professor Dean
G. Rojek’s declaration that returnees from the United States
are arrested, detained, and abused. Professor Rojek’s
declaration was unsigned and prepared for another case, and
Professor Rojek was not made available for cross-
examination. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471
3
F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that weight afforded to
applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely
within IJ’s discretion). Jin did not submit any
particularized evidence indicating that he would be
persecuted or tortured upon his return to China.
Accordingly, the agency properly denied Jin’s application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178, 185 (2d Cir.
2004).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4