09-2698-ag
Ma v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A094 800 782
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 2 nd day of March, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 ______________________________________
13 MING LI MA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-2698-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General, Blair T. O’Connor,
27 Assistant Director, John C.
28 Cunningham, Senior Litigation
29 Counsel, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, Civil Division, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Ming Li Ma, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of the June 3, 2009 order of the BIA affirming
7 the August 3, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven
8 R. Abrams denying his application for asylum, withholding of
9 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Ming Li Ma, No. A094 800 782 (B.I.A. June 3,
11 2009), aff’g No. A094 800 782 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 3,
12 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
13 facts and procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
15 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v.
16 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), and apply the
17 “substantial evidence” standard of review, under which we
18 uphold the agency’s factual findings so long as they are
19 supported by “reasonable, substantial and probative evidence
20 in the record.” Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
21 Cir. 2009).
22 The BIA reasonably concluded that, even assuming Ma’s
23 actions ensuring that his children were born in separate
2
1 hospitals and hiding with his wife constituted “other
2 resistance” to the Chinese family planning policy, see Shi
3 Liang Lin v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 2007), he
4 failed to demonstrate that the alleged persecution he endured,
5 (i.e., a 20,000 RMB fine) was on account of those actions,
6 rather than simply because of the family’s violation of the
7 one-child policy. See id. at 312-13. In his brief, Ma
8 asserts that his actions allowed his wife to give birth to
9 three children, which, in turn, caused the couple to violate
10 the policy and be fined. However, the BIA reasonably declined
11 to find that Ma was persecuted on account of his efforts to
12 evade detection, rather than on account of the violation
13 itself, because he offered no evidence demonstrating that
14 family planning officials were even aware of those actions,
15 let alone that he was fined because of them. See id.
16 Because the BIA reasonably found that Ma did not
17 establish past persecution, it properly denied his application
18 for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul
19 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
22 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
3
1 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
2 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
3 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4
5
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
10
4