Ying Shi v. Holder

10-2225-ag Shi v. Holder BIA Nelson, IJ A094 922 372 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 22nd day of March, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 ______________________________________ 12 13 YING SHI, AKA YING XING SHI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 10-2225-ag 17 v. NAC 18 19 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 ______________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Jan Potemkin, New York, New York. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant 29 Director; Virginia Lum, Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 Civil Division, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 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, Ying Shi, a native and citizen of China, 6 seeks review of a May 11, 2010, decision of the BIA 7 affirming the May 29, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying his application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ying Shi, No. A094 922 372 11 (B.I.A. May 11, 2010), aff’g No. A094 922 372 (Immig. Ct. 12 N.Y. City May 29, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity 13 with the underlying facts and procedural history of the 14 case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 18 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 20 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 Shi does not challenge the agency’s findings that he 22 did not suffer past persecution, but argues that he 23 established that he will be targeted for sterilization upon 2 1 return to China because of his “other resistance” to China’s 2 family planning policy. The agency reasonably determined 3 that Shi failed to establish that his fear of future 4 persecution was objectively reasonable, given that he only 5 claims to have heard from other people that family planning 6 officials wanted to sterilize him, he lived and worked in 7 his home province for one year without incident after he 8 heard that family planning officials wanted to sterilize 9 him, and he did not testify that he took any efforts to 10 conceal his presence during that time. See Jian Xing Huang 11 v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that a 12 fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid 13 support” in the record and is merely “speculative at 14 best.”). Cf. Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 15 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that where asylum applicant’s mother 16 and daughters continued to live in petitioner’s native 17 country, claim of well-founded fear was diminished). 18 Although Shi claims that background materials 19 established the objective reasonableness of his fear, Shi 20 did not present any evidence of forced sterilization in his 21 home province of Fujian, see Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 22 F.3d 138, 160-61, 169-70 (2d Cir. 2008), and the BIA 23 specifically addressed the background evidence submitted and 3 1 reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish 2 that Shi would be unable to live securely outside of his 3 home village, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 4 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). 5 Because objective evidence of future harm is required 6 for withholding of removal and CAT relief, the agency did 7 not err in denying relief based on Shi’s failure to 8 establish that his fear of future sterilization was 9 objectively reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 10 F.3d 169, 178, 183-86 (2d Cir. 2004) (providing that CAT 11 claim requires petitioner to “proffer objective evidence 12 that he or she is likely to be tortured in the future”). 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 14 DENIED. 15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 17 18 4