14-466
Fang v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A087 755 707
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 23rd day of April, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MEI LING FANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 14-466
17 NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; David
29 Schor, Trial Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 Petitioner Mei Ling Fang, a native and citizen of China,
10 seeks review of a January 29, 2014, decision of the BIA,
11 affirming an April 11, 2012, decision of an Immigration Judge
12 (“IJ”) denying Fang’s application for asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Mei Lin Fang, No. A087 755 707 (B.I.A. Jan. 29,
15 2014), aff’g No. A087 755 707 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 11,
16 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
17 facts and procedural history in this case.
18 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
19 the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237
20 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
22 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant like
2 Fang, who has not suffered past persecution, must demonstrate
3 an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. 8 U.S.C.
4 §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357
5 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). There are two ways for an
6 applicant to show objective fear: (1) offering evidence that
7 she would be singled out individually for persecution; or
8 (2) proving that a pattern or practice of persecution of persons
9 similarly situated to her exists in her home country. Mufied
10 v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir. 2007); 8 C.F.R.
11 § 1208.13(b)(2).
12 The agency reasonably found that Fang did not establish
13 that she would be individually targeted for persecution,
14 despite her credible testimony. Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
15 F.3d 138, 162 (2d Cir. 2004). Fang testified that although she
16 was at a house church when government officials arrived, she
17 was unsure as to whether they saw or recognized her. She
18 suggested that one of the other church members may have provided
19 her name under torture, but the agency reasonably found this
20 assertion speculative as there is no evidence in the record to
21 corroborate it. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129
3
1 (2d Cir. 2005). Fang did not present sufficiently reliable,
2 objective evidence that the police identified her and have a
3 continuing interest in her. Although Fang submitted letters
4 from her mother and her two friends, the agency did not err in
5 affording the letters diminished weight because her mother is
6 an interested party, her friends were unavailable for cross
7 examination, and the letters were clearly prepared for the
8 purposes of litigation. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
9 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341-42 (2d Cir. 2006). Further, even
10 given probative weight, the letters do not establish that
11 Chinese authorities have a continuing interest in Fang.
12 The agency also reasonably found that Fang failed to
13 establish a pattern or practice of persecution in China of
14 Christians. While the State Department Reports show that China
15 restricts religious activities, they do not establish the type
16 of systemic and pervasive threat of harm required to establish
17 a pattern or practice of persecution against Christians. See
18 Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir. 2009); Jian Hui
19 Shao, 546 F.3d at 150 n.6 (citing Mufied, 508 F.3d at 92-93).
20 Fang references three country conditions reports not
21 included in the administrative record to argue that the Chinese
4
1 government persecutes Christians. Even assuming we may
2 consider these reports, they are consistent with those included
3 in the administrative record.
4 Because Fang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
5 persecution, she necessarily could not meet the higher burden
6 required for withholding of removal or CAT relief. See Lecaj
7 v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
10 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
11 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
12 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
13 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
14 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
15 34.1(b).
16 FOR THE COURT:
17 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5