09-0782-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
IJ, Brennan
A 095 708 580
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 15 th day of January, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 _____________________________________
13
14 NUAN LIN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-0782-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC J. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: G. Victoria Calle, New York, New
26 York.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Emily Anne Radford,
3 Assistant Director; David Schor,
4 Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Nuan Lin, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
14 of a January 29, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the
15 September 21, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Noel
16 Brennan, which denied her application for relief under the
17 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lin, No. A095 708
18 580 (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2009), aff’g No. A095 708 580 (Immig.
19 Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 21, 2006). We assume the parties’
20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
21 in this case.
22 Under the circumstances of this case, this Court
23 reviews the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.
24 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
25 The applicable standards of review are well-established. See
26 Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 288-89
2
1 (2d Cir. 2007); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2 2008).
3 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
4 Lin’s application for CAT relief. In the absence of any
5 particularized evidence, an applicant cannot demonstrate
6 that she is more likely than not to be tortured “based
7 solely on the fact that she is part of the large class of
8 persons who have left China illegally” and on generalized
9 evidence indicating that torture occurs in Chinese prisons.
10 Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60
11 (2d Cir. 2005).
12 While Lin argues that her testimony expressing a
13 general fear of being punished for her illegal departure
14 combined with background evidence attesting to the
15 increasing prevalence of torture in China should suffice to
16 establish that she will more likely than not be tortured if
17 removed to China, this evidence does not demonstrate that
18 someone in her “particular alleged circumstances,” is likely
19 to face torture. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d
20 130, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2003). Therefore, substantial evidence
21 supports the agency’s conclusion that she failed to
22 establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Pierre v.
3
1 Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that
2 beyond evidence of inhumane prison conditions, a CAT
3 claimant must provide some evidence that the authorities act
4 with the specific intent to inflict physical or mental pain
5 or suffering on those detained).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
8 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
9 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
10 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
11 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
12 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
13 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
14 FOR THE COURT:
15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
16
17
18 By:___________________________
4