16-4251
Xiong v. Sessions
BIA
Hom, IJ
A088 440 357
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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 20th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZHENBO XIONG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-4251
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Anthony C.
27 Payne, Assistant Director;
28 Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of
31 Justice, Washington, DC.
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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Zhenbo Xiong, a native and citizen of the
6 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 29,
7 2016, decision of the BIA affirming an October 29, 2015,
8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zhenbo Xiong, No. A088 440
11 357 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2016), aff’g No. A088 440 357 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 29, 2015). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
14 history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the
17 adverse credibility determination that the BIA rejected.
18 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520,
19 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Furthermore, we do not review Xiong’s
20 claim of past persecution under China’s family planning
21 policy because he has not addressed it in his brief. See
22 Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7
23 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the only issue before us is
2
1 Xiong’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of
2 persecution in China on account of his practice of
3 Christianity. The applicable standards of review are well
4 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
5 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
6 Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish
7 eligibility for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear
8 of future persecution, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2), which must
9 be both subjectively credible and objectively reasonable,
10 Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
11 “[The] alien must make some showing that authorities in his
12 country of nationality are either aware of his activities or
13 likely to become aware of his activities.” Hongsheng Leng
14 v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
15 Xiong did not assert that Chinese officials are aware
16 of his religious practice. See id. Given the tens of
17 millions of unregistered Christian practitioners in China,
18 he did not demonstrate that Chinese officials are likely to
19 discover his religious activities as required to establish
20 a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. Moreover, the
21 country conditions evidence provides that in Xiong’s home
22 province of Guangdong religious practice in small
23 gatherings is tolerated with little interference. Xiong
3
1 failed to exhaust his argument that the IJ erroneously
2 speculated that he would return to Guangdong rather than
3 his wife’s province of Fujian. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t
4 of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 121-22 (2d Cir. 2007). Nor does
5 the record support Xiong’s argument: he twice testified
6 that his home was Guangdong and never testified that he
7 would live in Fujian. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)
8 (placing the burden on applicant to establish eligibility
9 for asylum).
10 Accordingly, because the agency reasonably found that
11 Xiong failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
12 persecution, it did not err in denying asylum, withholding
13 of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
14 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4