11-3269-ag
Chen v. Holder
BIA
Bain, IJ
A089 915 634
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 19th day of July, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 REENA RAGGI,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZUNIAN CHEN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-3269-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Lewis G. Hu, New York, NY.
24
25
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
2 General; Lewis E. Perez, Senior
3 Litigation Counsel; Elizabeth D.
4 Kurlan, Trial Attorney, Office of
5 Immigration Litigation, United
6 States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
14 is DENIED.
15 Zunian Chen, a native and citizen of China, seeks
16 review of a July 11, 2011, order of the BIA affirming the
17 April 19, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Quynh
18 Vu Bain, which denied his application for asylum,
19 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
20 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zunian Chen, No. A089 915
21 634 (B.I.A. July 11, 2011), aff’g No. A089 915 634 (Immig.
22 Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 19, 2010). We assume the parties’
23 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
24 in this case.
25 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
26 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
27 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
28 applicable standards of review are well-established.
2
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. DHS, 494
2 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 Chen challenges the agency’s denial of asylum and
4 withholding of removal, arguing that the harm he suffered in
5 China constituted persecution on account of a protected
6 ground. To be eligible for asylum or withholding of
7 removal, an applicant must show persecution on account of
8 race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or a
9 particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Chen
10 argues that the Chinese government persecuted him on account
11 of his imputed political opinion when he was arrested,
12 detained and beaten in 2004 and 2005 for protesting the
13 amount of compensation the government offered for the
14 condemnation of his real property. Here, the agency
15 reasonably found that the harm Chen suffered in China was
16 not on account of a statutorily protected ground. See
17 Yueging Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 547-49 (2d Cir.
18 2005); Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 529 (B.I.A.
19 2011).
20 Claims of persecution for opposing economic policies
21 require the agency to engage in a “factual inquiry” into the
22 broader political context to determine whether the dispute
23 bears a political dimension. See Yueging Zhang, 426 F.3d at
3
1 547. In this case, the agency adequately considered the
2 economic and physical harm Chen suffered for protesting the
3 compensation offered and reasonably concluded, based upon
4 the record evidence, that the government did not arrest,
5 detain and beat him because of an actual or imputed
6 political opinion. See i.d. (requiring showing that “asylum
7 seeker did not merely seek economic advantage but mounted a
8 challenge to the legitimacy and authority of the ruling
9 regime itself”).
10 Because Chen failed to demonstrate past persecution on
11 account of a protected ground, he is not entitled to a
12 presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
13 § 1208.13(b)(1). Chen does not identify any separate basis
14 for future persecution or argue that he has a well-founded
15 fear apart from the past harm.
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
21 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4
1 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
2 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5