10-2433-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
Vomacka, IJ
A 078 746 833
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18 th day of May, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MING LIN LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-2433-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Douglas E. Ginsburg,
27 Assistant Director; Jessica R. C.
28 Malloy, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Ming Lin Li, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 26, 2010,
7 decision of the BIA, affirming the May 20, 2008, decision of
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Alan A. Vomacka, denying her
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming
11 Lin Li, No. A078 746 833 (B.I.A. May 26, 2010), aff’g
12 No.A078 746 833 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 20, 2008). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v.
17 Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (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
20 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 I. Past Persecution
22 The record supports the agency’s determination that Li
2
1 failed to demonstrate that she suffered past persecution.
2 Although Li argues that she suffered past persecution
3 because government officials interfered with her church to
4 such an extent that she was not allowed to practice her
5 Catholic religion without fear of punishment, she fails to
6 point to any evidence in the record supporting this claim.
7 Indeed, Li submitted a letter from the archdiocese of her
8 church in China which did not indicate that she was unable
9 to either practice her religion or attend services, or that
10 she was arrested, detained, or harassed by the Chinese
11 government for her religious activities. Rather, the letter
12 stated that she took part in youth group activities, had
13 confessions, and “lived a life with strong faith.”
14 Moreover, Li testified that neither she, her family members,
15 nor any Catholic followers in her village were ever
16 arrested. Accordingly, because a reasonable fact-finder
17 would not be compelled to find that Li met her burden of
18 establishing either that any threats she received from
19 Chinese officials rose to the level of persecution or that
20 she was unable to practice her religion, we will not disturb
21 the agency’s conclusion that Li failed to establish that she
22 suffered past persecution. See Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279,
3
1 287 (2d Cir. 2000).
2 II. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
3 Because Li failed to demonstrate that she suffered past
4 persecution, she was not entitled to a presumption of a
5 well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
6 § 1208.13(b). As Li does not point to any evidence
7 corroborating her assertion that she would be singled out
8 for persecution, the agency reasonably concluded that she
9 failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
10 persecution. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129
11 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a fear is not objectively
12 reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is
13 merely “speculative at best”).
14 Furthermore, the agency reasonably found that Li failed
15 to demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution against
16 Catholics in China. See Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91
17 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d
18 Cir. 2009). Here, the agency specifically considered Li’s
19 evidence and reasonably found that, although there was
20 evidence indicating that “the Chinese government shows a
21 poor respect for religious freedom in general,” the evidence
22 also indicated that most people who have been persecuted
4
1 were religious leaders, and that Li was not a religious
2 leader nor was she likely to become one. This conclusion is
3 supported by substantial evidence, as the 2007 Religious
4 Freedom Report on China and the 2007 Profile of Asylum
5 Claims and Country Conditions in China Report provided that
6 authorities generally focused their attention on house-
7 church leaders, activists, unofficial clergy members, and
8 operators of illegal Bible publishing businesses, and that
9 leaders of religious groups were subject to “harsher
10 penalties.” Furthermore, the 2007 Religious Freedom Report
11 indicated that the government’s treatment of unregistered
12 groups varied widely throughout the country, and that, in
13 some regions, “government supervision of religious activity
14 was minimal.” Accordingly, substantial evidence supports
15 the agency’s determination that Li failed to establish a
16 pattern or practice of persecution of Catholics in China who
17 are similarly situated to her. See 8 U.S.C.
18 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
19 Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
20 Because Li was unable to show the objective likelihood
21 of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim based on
22 her Catholic religion, she was necessarily unable to meet
5
1 the higher standard required to succeed on a claim for
2 withholding of removal or CAT relief because all three
3 claims rested on the same factual predicate. See Paul v.
4 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Because the
5 agency’s burden finding is dispositive, we decline to reach
6 the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
9 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
10 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
11 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
12 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
13 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
14 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6