12-1064
Chang v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A088 961 020
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 13th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LIN CHU CHANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 12-1064
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Jay Ho Lee, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Anthony W.
27 Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel;
28 Micheline Hershey, Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
30 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 Petitioner Lin Chu Chang, a native and citizen of
6 China, seeks review of a February 23, 2012, order of the
7 BIA, affirming the March 15, 2010, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which denied his application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin Chu Chang,
11 No. A088 961 020 (B.I.A. Feb. 23, 2012), aff’g No. A088 961
12 020 (Immig. Ct. New York City Mar. 15, 2010). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for sake of completeness.”
17 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per
18 curiam) (internal quotations marks omitted). The applicable
19 standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
21 (2d Cir. 2009).
22 Contrary to Chang’s assertions, the agency reasonably
23 determined that he failed to establish that his fear of
2
1 future persecution was objectively reasonable, because there
2 was no evidence showing that the Chinese government would be
3 inclined to punish him for his low-level activities in
4 support of the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) in the United
5 States. See Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277, 284
6 (2d Cir. 2009) (A well-founded fear is a “subjective fear
7 that is objectively reasonable.”) (citations and internal
8 quotations marks omitted). As the agency noted, Chang
9 failed to present any evidence showing that anyone in China
10 was aware of, or had taken any action with respect to, his
11 CDP membership, letter writing, or World Journal article.
12 See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
13 (per curiam) (“In the absence of solid support in the
14 record” a fear of persecution is not objectively reasonable
15 and is “speculative at best.”).
16 Chang’s argument that the agency improperly denied
17 relief due to his limited education and imprecise
18 understanding of the CDP’s goals, in reliance on Rizal v.
19 Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2006), is misplaced.
20 Unlike the petitioner in Rizal who was improperly found not
21 credible due to his lack of doctrinal knowledge about the
22 Christian faith, 442 F.3d at 89-90, Chang was found to be a
3
1 CDP member and was attributed authorship of his World
2 Journal article. Here, the agency’s findings with respect
3 to Chang’s limited education, his inability to identify his
4 statements in the World Journal article, and his
5 corresponding-imprecise understanding of the CDP’s goals,
6 merely underscored the agency’s determination that his
7 involvement with the CDP was low-level. While Chang takes
8 issue with the IJ’s findings that his understanding of the
9 CDP’s goals was imprecise and that he was unable to identify
10 who wrote his World Journal article, where, as here, the
11 agency’s inferences “[are] tethered to the evidentiary
12 record, we will accord deference to the finding[s].” See
13 Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007).
14 Similarly, Chang’s argument that the agency ignored his
15 country conditions evidence, which established that his fear
16 of persecution was objectively reasonable, is without merit.
17 See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 337
18 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that the agency is presumed to
19 have “taken into account all of the evidence before [it],
20 unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”); Zhi Yun
21 Gao v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
22 (noting that the BIA is not required to “expressly parse or
4
1 refute on the record each individual argument or piece of
2 evidence offered by the petitioner” (internal quotation
3 marks omitted)). Although Chang points to evidence in the
4 record discussing the mistreatment of high-level CDP members
5 for their activities in China, because he failed to show
6 that he was similarly situated to these individuals, the
7 agency’s failure to explicitly discuss this evidence does
8 not compellingly suggest that it was ignored. See Xiao Ji
9 Chen, 471 F.3d at 337 n.17; Zhi Yun Gao, 508 F.3d at 87.
10 Lastly, we decline to consider the agency’s denial of
11 CAT relief or its denial of asylum and withholding of
12 removal based on Chang’s family planning and illegal
13 departure claims, because Chang waived those claims in his
14 brief to this Court.
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
17 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
18 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
19 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
20 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5