13-4522
Lin v. Lynch BIA
Cheng, IJ
A200 921 143
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 11th day of May, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
BIXIAN LIN,
Petitioner,
v. 13-4522
NAC
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.*
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Robert Tsigler, Law Offices of Yu &
Associates, PLLC, New York, N.Y.
*
Loretta E. Lynch is automatically substituted as the
respondent in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Holly M. Smith, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Edward C. Durant,
Attorney, 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 Bixian Lin, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 7,
2013 order of the BIA affirming the May 29, 2012 decision of
an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bixian Lin, No. A200 921 143
(B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2013), aff’g No. A200 921 143 (Immig. Ct.
N.Y. City May 29, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (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).
2
Lin claims that she fears Chinese authorities will
persecute her if she returns to China because she is a
member of the China Democracy Party. However, the agency
did not err in concluding that Lin’s fear of future
persecution was not objectively reasonable. Lin did not
allege past persecution, and thus was required either to
show that she would be singled out individually for
persecution, or that the Chinese government engaged in a
pattern or practice of persecuting similarly situated
persons. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
Contrary to Lin’s assertion on appeal, the BIA properly
reviewed the IJ’s findings regarding the likelihood of
future events occurring for clear error. See Hui Lin Huang
v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 134-35 (2d Cir. 2012).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Lin failed to establish a pattern or
practice of persecution of similarly situated individuals.
The record is devoid of evidence that the Chinese government
persecutes individuals similarly situated to Lin, that is,
low-level pro-democracy activists whose activism occurs only
abroad. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 112 (2d Cir.
2009).
3
Nor did the agency err in concluding that Lin did not
establish an objectively reasonable fear that she would be
singled out for harm. The only individualized evidence she
offered that the Chinese government knows of her pro-
democracy activism is an unsworn letter from her father, an
interested witness not subject to cross-examination. This
was permissibly discounted by the agency. Xiao Ji Chen v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2005); see
also Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.
2005).
Since Lin did not meet her lower burden of establishing
eligibility for asylum and since her claims for withholding
of removal and CAT relief rely on the same arguments as her
asylum claim, she cannot meet the higher standard required
to show entitlement to these other forms of relief. See
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 156 (2d Cir. 2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4