Yongjin Wu v. Holder , 535 F. App'x 23 ( 2013 )

11-945
Wu v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A088 775 700
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 6th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 YONGJIN WU,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-945
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, N.Y.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney General;
26 Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant
27 Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department of
30 Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Yongjin Wu, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a February 18,
7 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the June 9, 2009, decision
8 of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara Nelson denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yongjin
11 Wu, No. A088 775 700 (B.I.A. Feb. 18, 2011), aff’g No. A088
12 775 700 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 9, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
14 history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered
16 both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Yan Chen v.
17 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
18 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
20 Cir. 2009).
21 Where an applicant for asylum or withholding of removal
22 has not alleged past persecution, he must demonstrate a well-
23 founded fear of future persecution to be eligible for relief.
2
1 See Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d 554, 564 (2d Cir. 2006).
2 An applicant may make this showing in one of two ways: first,
3 by demonstrating that he “‘would be singled out individually
4 for persecution,’” or, second, by “prov[ing] the existence of
5 ‘a pattern or practice in his or her country of nationality .
6 . . of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to
7 the applicant’ . . . and . . . establish[ing] ‘his or her own
8 inclusion in, and identification with, such [a] group.’” Id.
9 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(2)(iii)). “Put simply, to
10 establish a well-founded fear of persecution in the absence of
11 any evidence of past persecution, an alien must make some
12 showing that authorities in his country of nationality are
13 either aware of his activities or likely to become aware of
14 his activities.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143
15 (2d Cir. 2008).
16 In this case, Wu does not allege that he suffered any
17 past persecution in China, and the agency reasonably concluded
18 that Wu failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
19 persecution in China. Wu offered no evidence that authorities
20 in China are aware that he practices Christianity. Wu argues
21 instead that, if returned to China, he will proselytize, and,
22 thus, his religious beliefs will be revealed to the
3
1 authorities, and he will be subject to persecution. As an
2 initial matter, the testimony of Wu’s pastor demonstrated that
3 Wu does not need to spread the gospel in public to practice
4 his faith. Rather, it can be done in private.
5 Further, to the extent that Wu might openly practice his
6 faith in China, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
7 conclusion that Wu’s fear of persecution is not well-founded.
8 The background materials provided by Wu in support of his
9 application demonstrate that, although the practice of
10 Christianity is restricted in some areas, the degree of
11 restriction varies widely from province to province. Wu
12 offered no evidence demonstrating that Christians in Fujian
13 are subject to persecution. Although he offered letters
14 describing incidents of negative treatment of Christians in
15 his province, neither letter established that Wu would be
16 persecuted for proselytizing or described harm rising to the
17 level of persecution. Brief periods of detention, on their
18 own, do not rise to the level of persecution. See Ai Feng
19 Yuan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 192, 198 (2d Cir.
20 2005), overruled on other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S.
21 Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 313 (2d Cir. 2007). Nor do
22 unfulfilled threats. See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 449
4
1 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, neither letter
2 supports Wu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of
3 persecution on the basis of his Christian faith. Absent
4 “solid support” in the record that his fear is objectively
5 reasonable, Wu’s claim that he fears future persecution is
6 “speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d
7 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
8 The agency also reasonably concluded that Wu failed to
9 demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians
10 in China. Wu argues that the background materials describe
11 the continued repression of religious practices in China.
12 However, although the background materials demonstrate the
13 mistreatment of some Christians in China, nothing in the
14 record compels the conclusion that it is sufficiently
15 “systemic, pervasive or organized” to establish a pattern or
16 practice of persecution. In re A- M-, 23 I&N Dec. 737, 741
17 (BIA 2005).
18 Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied Wu’s
19 application for asylum. Because Wu’s claims for withholding
20 of removal and CAT relief are based on the same factual
21 predicate as his asylum claim, we find that the agency
22 reasonably denied those claims as well. See 8 C.F.R.
5
1 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)(i); see also
2 Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
5 for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
6