11-335-ag
Lin v. Holder
BIA
Bain, IJ
A087 481 027
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 23rd day of July, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 CHANG DONG LIN,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 11-335-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Zhou Wang, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Russell J. E. Verby, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; John D.
29 Williams, 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 Chang Dong Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s
6 Republic of China, seeks review of a January 7, 2011
7 decision of the BIA affirming the July 7, 2009 decision of
8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chang Dong Lin,
11 No. A087 481 027 (B.I.A. Jan. 7, 2011), aff’g No. A087 481
12 027 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 7, 2009). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the BIA.
17 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005);
18 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522
19 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin
21 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). As a
22 preliminary matter, Lin has not challenged the agency’s
23 denial of CAT relief, or its findings that he failed to
2
1 establish his eligibility for asylum based on being fined or
2 threatened with sterilization for violating China’s family
3 planning policy. Accordingly, we address only his
4 application for asylum and withholding of removal based on
5 his other resistance to China’s family planning policy.
6 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
7 determination that Lin failed to establish past persecution.
8 As Lin acknowledges, the agency correctly concluded that he
9 was not eligible for asylum solely on the basis of his
10 wife’s forced abortion. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
11 Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309-10 (2d Cir. 2007). Nevertheless,
12 he could still qualify for relief by demonstrating that:
13 (1) he engaged in “other resistance” to the family planning
14 policy; and (2) he suffered harm rising to the level of
15 persecution or has a well-founded fear of suffering such
16 harm as a direct result of his resistance. See id. at 313;
17 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520,
18 523 (A.G. 2008).
19 Here, the agency found that the mistreatment Lin
20 suffered did not rise to the level of persecution because he
21 was not physically harmed during his one-day detention, and
22 the beatings he endured before and during his three-day
23 detention resulted only in mild injuries that did not
3
1 require medical treatment. Given these facts and our
2 precedents, we are hard-pressed to conclude that the
3 agency’s determination was anything other than reasonable.
4 See Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011);
5 Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 n.3 (2d Cir. 2006).
6 Because substantial evidence supports the agency’s
7 determination that Lin failed to demonstrate past
8 persecution on account of his other resistance to China’s
9 family planning policy, it did not err in concluding that he
10 failed to establish his eligibility for asylum or
11 withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paul
12 v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
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
4