Yan Zhu Tang v. Holder

10-2611-ag Tang v. Holder BIA Schoppert, IJ A095 716 892 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 21st day of July, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _______________________________________ 12 13 YAN ZHU TANG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 10-2611-ag 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL 20 Respondent. 21 ______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New 24 York. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Luis E. Perez, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Ari Nazarov, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, Civil 31 Division, United States Department 32 of 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Yan Zhu Tang, a native and citizen of China, 6 seeks review of a June 4, 2010, decision of the BIA 7 affirming the May 30, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert denying her application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yan Zhu Tang, No. 11 A095 716 892 (B.I.A. June 4, 2010), aff’g No. A095 716 892 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 30, 2008). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 18 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 Because Tang has not challenged the agency’s denial of 22 CAT relief and concedes her lack of eligibility for relief 2 1 based on her prior fear of forced marriage, we address only 2 the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal 3 with respect to Tang’s political activities in the United 4 States. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 5 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (providing that issues not 6 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and 7 normally will not be addressed on appeal). 8 Tang argues that she established a well-founded fear of 9 future persecution on account of her participation in the 10 China Democracy Party while in the United States. However, 11 the burden was on Tang to establish that her fear of 12 persecution was objectively reasonable, see Ramsameachire v. 13 Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004), and substantial 14 evidence supports the agency’s finding that she did not meet 15 that burden. The evidence Tang submitted of human rights 16 conditions in China indicates that the prominent leaders of 17 pro-democracy movements outside of China and political 18 dissidents within China have been persecuted. However, as 19 the agency found, their persecution does not establish that 20 Tang is also at risk of persecution if she returned to China 21 because she has been only a low-level activist outside of 22 China. As the record does not establish that people 3 1 similarly situated to Tang have been persecuted by the 2 Chinese government, the agency’s conclusion that she does 3 not have a well-founded fear of future persecution is 4 supported by substantial evidence. See Hongsheng Leng v. 5 Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the 6 agency did not err in denying her application for asylum and 7 withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 10 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 11 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 12 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 13 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 14 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 15 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 18 19 4