11-4787
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Cheng, IJ
A098 895 566
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 2nd day of August, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 YOU HUA LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-4787
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Richard Tarzia, Belle Mead, NJ.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Anthony P.
27 Nicastro, Senior Litigation Counsel,
28 Joanna L. Watson; Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 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
4 is DENIED.
5 You Hua Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a October 20, 2011,
7 decision of the BIA affirming the November 19, 2009,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Mary Cheng, denying his
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re You Hua
11 Lin, No. A098 895 566 (B.I.A. Oct. 20, 2011), aff’g No. A098
12 895 566 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 19, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for
16 the sake of completeness.” See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d
17 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review
18 are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see
19 also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
20 2009).
21 Lin argues that he has demonstrated past persecution
22 because of his wife’s sterilization. This argument is
23 without merit as we have previously held that a woman’s
2
1 forced sterilization does not qualify as per se persecution
2 with respect to her spouse. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t
3 of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 314 (2d Cir. 2007)(en banc).
4 Lin further argues that he demonstrated past
5 persecution and has a well-founded fear of future
6 persecution due to his inability to pay a 21,000 renminbi
7 (“RMB”) fine levied against him for violating China’s family
8 planning policy.
9 The agency did not err in finding that the 21,000 RMB
10 fine did not constitute harm sufficient to rise to the level
11 of persecution. Economic harm may constitute persecution if
12 the applicant demonstrates “severe economic disadvantage.”
13 See Matter of T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 170, 173 (BIA 2007)
14 (holding that an applicant must demonstrate that the claimed
15 economic deprivation was sufficiently severe to “constitute
16 a threat to [his or her] life or freedom” in order for such
17 harm to constitute persecution). Because Lin already
18 demonstrated an ability to pay 13,000 of the total 21,000
19 RMB fine, and was further able to acquire $70,000 to travel
20 to the U.S., the agency did not err in finding that the
21 remaining 8,000 RMB did not constitute economic harm rising
22 to the level of persecution. See Guan Shan Liao v. U.S.
23 Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002). Moreover,
3
1 Lin failed to meet his burden of showing a well-founded fear
2 of future persecution because, as the agency noted, he had
3 not indicated that the authorities had made any effort to
4 collect the remainder of the fine. See Jian Xing Huang v.
5 INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (a fear is not
6 objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the
7 record and is merely “speculative at best.”). Because Lin’s
8 withholding of removal and CAT claims were based on the same
9 factual predicate, the agency did not err in finding that he
10 had not met the burden of proof for such claims. See Paul
11 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang
12 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2006).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
4