09-1612-ag
Chen v. Holder
IJ Sichel
BIA
A095 673 990
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 27 th day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 JIE CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-1612-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Yee Ling Poon, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
27 Director; Colette J. Winston, Trial
28 Attorney, Office of Immigration
29 Litigation, United States Department
30 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 Jie Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
6 of China, seeks review of an March 20, 2009, order of the
7 BIA, affirming the June 28, 2007, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Helen Sichel, which denied his application for
9 asylum and withholding of removal. In re Jie Chen, No. A095
10 673 990 (B.I.A. Mar. 20, 2009), aff’g No. A095 673 990
11 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 28, 2007). We assume the
12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
13 procedural history in this case.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both
15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
16 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
17 2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
18 established. See Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110
19 (2d Cir. 2008); Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494
20 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
21 I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal
22 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
23 Chen’s application for relief. Before the agency, Chen
2
1 asserted that he feared persecution under China’s family
2 planning policy. In light of the fact that Chen is
3 unmarried, has no children, has never been forcibly
4 sterilized, and has had no contact with China’s family
5 planning officials, the agency reasonably found his fear of
6 persecution on this ground too speculative to be well-
7 founded. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d
8 Cir. 2005).
9 Moreover, the agency correctly concluded that Chen was
10 ineligible for asylum based on the forced sterilization of
11 his mother and aunts. See Tao Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d
12 137, 140-41 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Shi Liang Lin v. U.S.
13 Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308-09 (2d Cir. 2007)).
14 Further, Chen has offered no evidence that family members of
15 those who undergo forced sterilization are actually
16 subjected to closer scrutiny by family planning officials or
17 that they are more likely to face forced sterilization
18 themselves. See Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at 128-29.
19 Although Chen argues that due to his illegal departure,
20 the Chinese government will impute to him an anti-government
21 political opinion, he fails to identify any record evidence
22 that would support such an argument. See Yueqing Zhang v.
3
1 Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005). Moreover, with
2 respect to illegal departure claims, this Court has observed
3 that “[t]he possibility that an individual may suffer
4 prosecution for violating a generally applicable statute
5 does not, by itself, constitute a valid basis for granting
6 asylum.” Qun Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 163 n.5 (2d
7 Cir. 2002) (per curiam); see also Matter of Sibrun, 18 I. &
8 N. Dec. 354, 359 (BIA 1983).
9 For these reasons, the agency did not err in finding
10 that Chen failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
11 persecution. Accordingly, the agency reasonably denied his
12 asylum and withholding claims as they were based on the same
13 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156
14 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 II. CAT
16 Chen also challenges the agency’s denial of his
17 application for CAT relief, arguing that the background
18 evidence in the record demonstrates that it is more likely
19 than not that he will be tortured by Chinese government
20 officials on account of his illegal departure from that
21 country and by loan sharks with the acquiescence of
22 government officials on account of his unpaid debt. We have
23 held that an applicant cannot demonstrate that he is more
4
1 likely than not to be tortured “based solely on the fact
2 that [he] is part of the large class of persons who have
3 illegally departed China” and on generalized evidence
4 indicating that torture occurs in Chinese prisons. Mu Xiang
5 Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir.
6 2005); see also Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 118-19 (2d
7 Cir. 2007). Here, substantial evidence supports the
8 agency’s denial of Chen’s CAT claim, as Chen provided no
9 basis for the agency to conclude that he, or someone in his
10 “particular alleged circumstances,” faces an elevated risk
11 of torture. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 144
12 (2d Cir. 2003).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
20 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
23
24
25
5