-
14-4206 Huang v. Lynch BIA Hom, IJ A087 737 207 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 13th day of January, two thousand sixteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YING YING HUANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-4206 17 NAC 18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, New 24 York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Shelley 28 R. Goad, Assistant Director; Julia 29 J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 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 Ying Ying Huang, a native and citizen of 6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 17, 2014, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 16, 2012, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Huang’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ying Ying Huang, No. A087 737 11 207 (B.I.A. Oct. 17, 2014), aff’g No. A087 737 207 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 17 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established.
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 19
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Dedji v. Mukasey,
525 F.3d 20187, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 2 that Huang failed to establish a well-founded fear of harm at 3 the hand of smugglers in China. Absent past persecution, an 4 applicant may establish eligibility for asylum by demonstrating 5 a well-founded fear of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. 6 § 1208.13(b)(2), which must be both subjectively credible and 7 objectively reasonable, Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 8169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). To demonstrate a well-founded fear, 9 an applicant must show either a reasonable possibility that she 10 would be singled out for persecution or that the country of 11 removal has a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly 12 situated individuals.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). 13 As the agency concluded, Huang’s fear of harm was 14 speculative given that she and her family have not been 15 contacted, much less threatened, by smugglers since they paid 16 the fee for Huang’s entry to the United States. See Jian Xing 17 Huang v. INS,
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence 18 of solid support in the record . . . , [an applicant’s] fear 19 is speculative at best.”). Huang’s failure to demonstrate that 20 her fear of harm was objectively reasonable is dispositive of 21 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief because all three 3 1 claims are based on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. 2 Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 3 we do not reach the agency’s alternative bases for denial of 4 asylum and withholding of removal. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
5 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are 6 not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 7 is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 8 Furthermore, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in 9 declining to admit Huang’s late-filed evidence because she was 10 given more than one year to file it and the evidence pre-dated 11 the filing deadline. Huang argues that the IJ should have 12 extended the August 2012 deadline because she did not present 13 her new basis for asylum (fear of smugglers) until July 2012. 14 This argument is disingenuous. She did not argue this point 15 to the IJ. And, regardless of when she amended her application 16 to present this new claim, she knew of the bases for it as early 17 as July 2010 and thus had more than two years to gather and timely 18 submit background evidence. 19 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 20 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 21 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 4 1 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 2 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 3 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 4 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 5 34.1(b). 6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 5
Document Info
Docket Number: 14-4206
Citation Numbers: 628 F. App'x 57
Filed Date: 1/13/2016
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023