Yong Cui v. Lynch

14-2231 Cui v. Lynch BIA Van Wyke, IJ A088 822 631 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 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 24th day of November, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YONG CUI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-2231 17 NAC 18 19 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, 25 New York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Cindy S. 1 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 2 Lindsay M. Murphy, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, D.C. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Yong Cui, a native and citizen of People’s 12 Republic of China, seeks review of a June 2, 2014, decision 13 of the BIA affirming an August 2, 2013, decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cui’s application for 15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yong Cui, No. 17 A088 822 631 (B.I.A. June 2, 2014), aff’g No. A088 822 631 18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 2, 2013). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 20 in this case. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 22 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 23 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 24 applicable standards of review are well established. 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 3 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish 4 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear 5 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must 6 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable, 7 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). 8 To establish a well-founded fear, an applicant must show 9 either that he would be singled out for persecution or that 10 the country of removal has a pattern or practice of 11 persecuting those similarly situated to him. 8 C.F.R. 12 § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The agency was not compelled to find 13 that Cui demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in 14 China on account of his intentions to practice his Christian 15 faith in an unregistered church and to proselytize. 16 The IJ reasonably found that the country conditions 17 evidence in the record established that between fifty and 18 seventy million Christians practice in unregistered churches 19 in China, and that in some areas such practice was tolerated 20 without interference. Therefore, the IJ did not err in 21 determining that Cui failed to demonstrate “systemic or 3 1 pervasive” persecution of similarly situated Christians 2 sufficient to demonstrate a pattern or practice of 3 persecution in China. In re A-M-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737, 741 4 (B.I.A. 2005) (citation omitted); see also Santoso v. 5 Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2009) (denying 6 petition where agency considered background materials and 7 rejected pattern-or-practice claim). 8 The IJ also reasonably found that Cui failed to 9 establish an objectively reasonable fear of being singled 10 out for persecution. Cui did not assert that Chinese 11 officials are aware of his religious practice. And, given 12 the tens of millions of unregistered Christian practitioners 13 in China, he did not demonstrate that Chinese officials are 14 likely to discover his practice as required. See Hongsheng 15 Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). 16 Furthermore, although the record evidence establishes that 17 public proselytizing is not permitted in China, it does not 18 establish that practitioners, such as Cui, who proselytize 19 face harm rising to the level of persecution. 20 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that 21 Cui failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of 4 1 persecution, it did not err in denying asylum, withholding 2 of removal, and CAT relief because those claims were based 3 on the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 4 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 7 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 8 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 9 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 10 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 11 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 12 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15 16 5