Yuechan Weng v. Holder

14-105 Weng v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A087 790 944 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 9th day of December, two thousand fourteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YUECHAN WENG, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-105 17 NAC 18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant 27 Director; Jeffrey R. Meyer, 28 Attorney, Office of Immigration 29 Litigation, United States Department 30 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 Yuechan Weng, a native and citizen of China, seeks 6 review of the December 23, 2013, decision of the BIA 7 affirming the November 2, 2011, decision of the Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”), denying her application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yuechan Weng, No. A087 790 11 944 (B.I.A. Dec. 23, 2013), aff’g No. A087 790 944 (Immig. 12 Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 2, 2011). 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 decision. See Xue 17 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 18 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 19 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 20 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 The agency reasonably concluded that, even assuming 22 Weng’s credibility, she did not meet her burden of 23 establishing that she suffered past persecution or had a 2 1 well-founded fear of future persecution. “[P]ersecution is 2 an extreme concept that does not include every sort of 3 treatment our society regards as offensive.” Mei Fun Wong 4 v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal 5 quotation marks and citations omitted). The harm must be 6 sufficiently severe, rising above “mere harassment.” 7 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d 8 Cir. 2006). 9 Weng testified that, while she was detained following 10 her arrest for worshiping in an unsanctioned church, one 11 police officer hit her in the face with a religious pamphlet 12 about 20 or 30 times, which resulted in bruising requiring 13 topical anti-inflammatory medication. The agency reasonably 14 determined that such an account was insufficient to 15 establish harm with the requisite severity to constitute 16 persecution. See Mei Fun Wong, 633 F.3d at 72; cf. Jian Qiu 17 Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[W]e find 18 no error in the BIA’s conclusion that [petitioner] failed to 19 establish persecution because . . ., prior to his arrest and 20 detention by local police, he suffered only minor bruising 21 from an altercation with family planning officials, which 22 required no formal medical attention and had no lasting 23 physical effect.” (emphasis in original)). 3 1 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 2 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 3 of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). To 4 establish a well-founded fear of persecution, an applicant 5 must show that she subjectively fears persecution and that 6 this fear is objectively reasonable. Ramsameachire v. 7 Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). An applicant 8 need not “provide evidence that there is a reasonable 9 possibility [] she would be singled out individually for 10 persecution if . . . [t]he applicant establishes that there 11 is a pattern or practice in his or her country of 12 nationality . . . of persecution of a group of persons 13 similarly situated to the applicant.” 8 C.F.R. § 14 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Irrespective of the theory, the agency 15 did not err in finding that Weng failed to demonstrate a 16 well-founded fear of persecution. 17 The agency acknowledged that the Chinese government 18 treated leaders and members of certain religious groups 19 poorly, but reasonably noted that the country conditions 20 evidence indicated that the Chinese government permits small 21 groups to worship in homes without registering and does not 22 interfere with unregistered religious groups in certain 4 1 areas of the country. That evidence did not compel a 2 finding that Weng’s fear of being singled out for 3 persecution is objectively reasonable, or that there is a 4 pattern or practice of persecution against similarly 5 situated practitioners. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 6 F.3d 138, 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (providing that the agency is 7 not compelled to resolve conflicts in record evidence in the 8 applicant’s favor so long as substantial evidence raises 9 doubts that authorities will single out the applicant for 10 persecution and the agency does not overlook contrary 11 evidence); Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d 12 Cir. 2009) (denying petition where agency considered 13 background materials and rejected pattern-or-practice 14 claim). 15 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that 16 Weng failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of 17 persecution on account of her practice of Christianity, it 18 did not err in denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 19 CAT relief because those claims were based on the same 20 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 21 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 22 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 23 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 5 1 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 2 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 3 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 4 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 5 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 6 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 9 10 6