09-0720-ag
Li v. Holder
BIA
Romig, IJ
A 099 026 526
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS
FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1
AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A
LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST
ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION:
“(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER
TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT
HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE
ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE
DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
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 1 st day of December, two thousand nine.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 BIN LIN LI,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-0720-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Henry Zhang, New York, New York.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Michael C.
4 Heyse, 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 Bin Lin Li, a native and citizen of China, seeks review
14 of a February 12, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the August
15 29, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jeffrey L.
16 Romig, which denied Lin’s application for asylum,
17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bin Lin Li, No. A 099 026
19 526 (B.I.A. Feb. 12, 2009), aff’g No. A 099 026 526 (Immig.
20 Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2007). We assume the parties’
21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
22 in this case.
23 This Court reviews the agency’s factual findings
24 under the substantial evidence standard. 8 U.S.C.
25 § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. DHS, 494 F.3d 281, 289
26 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court reviews de novo questions of law
2
1 and the application of law to undisputed fact. See
2 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008).
3 The agency did not err in denying Li’s application for
4 asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Li waived
5 her claim for CAT relief by failing to adequately argue that
6 claim in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d
7 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that issues
8 not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived
9 and normally will not be addressed on appeal in the absence
10 of manifest injustice).
11 As to the agency findings Li does challenge, each was
12 proper. Contrary to Li’s argument, the agency considered
13 each piece of evidence Li submitted and reasonably concluded
14 that she failed to establish either past persecution or a
15 well-founded fear of future persecution. See Xiao Ji Chen
16 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006)
17 (citing Asociacion de Compositores y Editores de Musica
18 LatinoAmericana v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal, 854 F.2d 10,
19 13 (2d Cir.1988) (“[W]e must review a challenge to the
20 Tribunal’s evidentiary rulings with some deference, for the
21 type of proof that will be acceptable and the weight it
22 should receive lie largely in the discretion of the
23 [Tribunal].”)).
3
1 Furthermore, the agency adequately considered Li’s past
2 harm in the aggregate. See Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d
3 70, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2005). The only events Li testified to
4 concerning her past persecution were her escape from the
5 police after distributing Falun Gong flyers and several
6 visits to her home by Chinese authorities. The BIA
7 addressed both events in its decision, reasonably finding
8 that Li “was never arrested or detained” for handing out the
9 flyers and that “[t]he several home visits by local
10 officials . . . [did] not rise to the level of persecution.”
11 See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Attorney General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-
12 13 (2d Cir. 2006) (unfulfilled threats alone do not
13 constitute past persecution).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
16 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
17 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
18 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
19 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
20 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
21 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
22
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
25
26 By:___________________________
4