11-1372
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Ferris, IJ
A078 299 087
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 15th day of January, two thousand fifteen.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
DENNY CHIN,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
XIANG ZUN LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 11-1372
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Xiang Zun Lin, pro se, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Leslie McKay, Assistant
Director; Jessica Segall,
Christopher Buchanan, Trial
Attorneys, Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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 Xiang Zun Lin, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 11,
2011, decision of the BIA affirming the January 5, 2009,
decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Xiang
Zun Lin, No. A078 299 087 (BIA Mar. 11, 2011), aff’g No.
A078 299 087 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 5, 2009). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of this case. Under the circumstances of
this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by
the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.
2005).
The agency did not err in concluding that, even if Lin
was deemed to have demonstrated “other resistance” to the
family planning policy, Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 313 (2d Cir. 2007), the property
2
destruction and fines to which he was subject did not amount
to economic persecution. Although an applicant “need not
demonstrate a total deprivation of livelihood or a total
withdrawal of all economic opportunity in order to
demonstrate harm amounting to persecution,” the harm must be
“severe,” such that it would “constitute a threat to an
individual’s life or freedom.” Matter of T-Z-, 24 I&N Dec.
163, 170-73 (BIA 2007); see also Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder,
No. 13-2030-ag, 2014 WL 6844695, at *6 (2d Cir. Dec. 5,
2014)(economic sanction constitutes persecution if victim is
deprived of “essentials of life” or if it deliberately
imposes “a severe economic disadvantage”); Guan Shan Liao v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 298 F.3d 61, 70 (2d Cir. 2002) (an
applicant must present evidence of his financial situation
to show “that he suffered a deliberate imposition of
substantial economic disadvantage” (internal quotation and
citation omitted)).
Lin presented no evidence that he suffered any ongoing
harm as a result of the fines. He paid off the fines levied
against him in 1996 and again in 2000 by borrowing money
from his relatives in China, and kept his job in China until
he left in March 2001. While he argued that at his rate of
3
pay in China, 400 renminbi a month, it would take him a long
time to repay his relatives the 14,000 renminbi he owed
them, he did not argue that any harm would befall him as a
result of slow repayment.
Moreover, Lin presented no evidence to show that the
Chinese government would fine or otherwise harm him when he
returned to China. His wife remains in China with their two
children, and Lin did not assert that she had been fined or
otherwise harmed in his absence. See Melgar de Torres v.
Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly,
because Lin did not show past persecution, and was unable to
establish the objective likelihood of harm needed to make
out an asylum claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the
higher standard required to succeed on a claim for
withholding of removal or CAT relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 616
F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5