Hua Ji Lin v. Holder

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