10-125-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Chew, IJ
A075 962 076
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 21st day of March, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 HUA JI LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-125-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Hua Ji Lin, pro se, Monterey Park,
24 CA.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Ethan B. Kanter, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Jeffrey L.
29 Menkin, Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 of Justice, 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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Hua Ji Lin, a native and citizen of China,
6 seeks review of a December 30, 2009, decision of the BIA
7 affirming the February 13, 2008, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) George T. Chew denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hua Ji Lin, No.
11 A075 962 076 (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2009), aff’g No. A075 962 076
12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 13, 2008). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
17 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21 Lin argues that he suffered past persecution on account
22 of his status as a fisherman when he was injured after
2
1 government officials commandeered the boat on which he was
2 working. However, the BIA reasonably found that Lin’s
3 injury was the result of an accident, and thus he did not
4 show that the government officials injured him “on account
5 of” his status as a fisherman. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
6 Lin further argues that he was subjected to economic
7 persecution because government officials denied his
8 applications for business licenses and harassed his
9 customers following his public complaints about the
10 government’s failure to compensate him for his injury.
11 However, the agency reasonably concluded that Lin’s
12 testimony, which contained only his speculation as to the
13 motives of government officials in denying the licenses and
14 harassing his customers, did not establish the actual
15 motives behind the officials’ actions, and thus did not
16 establish that he was subjected to persecution “on account
17 of” his opinions. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
18 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that the
19 weight afforded to the applicant’s evidence lies largely
20 within the discretion of the agency); 8 U.S.C.
21 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (providing that “administrative findings of
22 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would
23 be compelled to conclude to the contrary”).
3
1 Because the agency reasonably concluded that Lin did
2 not establish a nexus between his past mistreatment and his
3 political opinion or membership in a particular social
4 group, the agency did not err in denying his applications
5 for asylum and withholding of removal. See Ramsameachire v.
6 Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004).
7 Lin also argues that the BIA erred in finding that he
8 did not establish his eligibility for CAT relief. However,
9 nothing in the record demonstrates that Lin was subjected to
10 torture or any other deliberate infliction of physical harm,
11 and Lin points to no evidence suggesting that he will be
12 subjected to torture if he returns to China. Thus, he has
13 shown no error in the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Mu
14 Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 159-60 (2d
15 Cir. 2005) (explaining that applicants for CAT relief must
16 present evidence establishing that they will more likely
17 than not be tortured).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
20 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
4