11-2147-ag
Ng v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A094 894 625
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 25th day of March, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
PETER W. HALL,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
PO SHING NG,
Petitioner,
v. 11-2147
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: John Chang, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director; Janice K. Redfern, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Po Shing Ng, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a May 10, 2011
order of the BIA affirming the May 6, 2009 decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Po
Shing Ng, No. A094 894 625 (B.I.A. May 10, 2011), aff’g No.
A094 894 625 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 6, 2009). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
applicable standards of review are well-established.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
The agency reasonably concluded that Ng’s testimony
that he was beaten by a gang at school, which did not
2
include any details about his injuries and indicated that
his parents did not think the beatings were serious, did not
establish that he suffered past persecution. See
Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d
Cir. 2006) (concluding that persecution requires that the
harm suffered be sufficiently severe, rising above “mere
harassment”); see also Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820,
822 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding no error in BIA’s conclusion
that alien failed to establish persecution when he was
beaten prior to two days in detention and the injuries
“required no formal medical attention and had no lasting
physical effect”).
The agency also reasonably concluded that Ng did not
demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution at the
hands of this gang because he testified that he was not
harmed by the gang between 2003, when he left school, and
2007, when he left China.
Accordingly, we do not address Ng’s argument that he
was targeted by the gang on account of his membership in a
protected social group because the agency reasonably
concluded that he was not eligible for asylum or withholding
of removal because he did not demonstrate past persecution
3
or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. The pending motion for a stay of removal is
DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4