11-4528
Ye v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A089 193 649
A089 193 650
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 New
4 York, on the 2nd day of August, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 LUQIN YE, HUA SHI,
14 Petitioners,
15
16 v. 11-4528
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONERS: Scott E. Bratton, Margaret Wong &
24 Associates, Cleveland, Ohio.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier,
28 Assistant Director; Lindsay M. Murphy,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States Department of
31 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioners Luqin Ye and Hua Shi, natives and citizens of
6 the Peoples Republic of China, seek review of an October 6,
7 2011, decision of the BIA affirming the April 26, 2010,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom denying Ye’s
9 application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief
10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Luqin Ye,
11 Hua Shi, Nos. A089 193 649/650 (B.I.A. Oct. 6, 2011), aff’g
12 Nos. A089 193 649/650 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 26, 2010).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s decision. See Xue
17 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir.
18 2005). Where an applicant for asylum, withholding of removal,
19 or CAT relief has not alleged past persecution, she must
20 demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution in order
21 to be eligible for relief. See Kyaw Zwar Tun v. INS, 445 F.3d
22 554, 564 (2d Cir. 2006). An applicant may make this showing
23 by demonstrating that she “would be singled out individually
2
1 for persecution.” Id. “Put simply, to establish a well-
2 founded fear of persecution in the absence of any evidence of
3 past persecution, an alien must make some showing that
4 authorities in his country of nationality are either aware of
5 his activities or likely to become aware of his activities.”
6 Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008).
7 In this case, Ye does not allege that she suffered any
8 past persecution in China, and the agency reasonably concluded
9 that Ye failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
10 persecution in China. The agency’s decision to give limited
11 weight to Ye’s evidence is entitled to particular deference,
12 see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342
13 (2d Cir. 2006), and, here, nothing in the record compels the
14 conclusion that the agency erred in this respect, as much of
15 the evidence was either unsworn or given by an interested
16 witness not subject to cross-examination. See In re H-L-H- &
17 Z-Y-Z-, 25 I.&N. Dec. 209, 215 (BIA 2010) (finding that
18 unsworn letters from the alien’s friends and family were
19 insufficient to provide substantial support for the alien’s
20 claims because they were interested witnesses not subject to
21 cross-examination) (citing Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
22 138, 160-61, 165 (2d Cir. 2008)), overruled on other grounds
3
1 by Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012).
2 Ye argues that the agency erred in requiring that the
3 Neighborhood Committee notice be authenticated, and that the
4 notice was supported by her father’s letter and her father-in-
5 law’s affidavit. Although we do not require that a document
6 be authenticated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 in order to be
7 afforded significant weight, see Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of
8 Justice, 428 F.3d 391, 404 (2d Cir. 2005), Ye points to
9 nothing in the record compelling the conclusion that the
10 agency erred in affording the notice minimal weight. This is
11 particularly true given that the only record support for the
12 notice consisted of the letter from Ye’s father and the
13 affidavit of her father-in-law, each of which was properly
14 assigned minimal weight by the agency.
15 Further, the agency reasonably concluded that the
16 background materials did not support Ye’s claim that she had a
17 well-founded fear of persecution in China. The news article
18 describing the arrest and imprisonment of Chinese citizens who
19 distributed Bibles in China involved individuals who had
20 distributed twenty thousand Bibles over the course of ten
21 years as part of an underground church. Ye sent a single
22 Bible to a neighbor. Further, although Ye submitted articles
4
1 and reports describing the mistreatment of Christians in
2 China, none of these materials described the mistreatment of
3 an individual who sent a single religious item to another
4 individual, and, thus, do not describe the treatment of
5 individuals similarly situated to Ye. Absent “solid support”
6 in the record that her fear is objectively reasonable, Ye’s
7 claim that she fears future persecution is “speculative at
8 best.” Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d
9 Cir. 2005). Because nothing in the record compels the
10 conclusion that Ye has a well-founded fear of future
11 persecution in China, we find no basis for reversal of the
12 agency’s decision. See Wu Biao Chen v. INS, 344 F.3d 272, 275
13 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Where, as here, an appeal turns on the
14 sufficiency of the factual findings underlying the immigration
15 court’s determination that an alien has failed to satisfy his
16 burden of proof, we will reverse the immigration court’s
17 ruling only if no reasonable fact-finder could have failed to
18 find . . . past persecution or fear of future persecution.”
19 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
20 Because Ye failed to establish her eligibility for
21 asylum, she necessarily was unable to meet the higher standard
22 to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal and
5
1 CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir.
2 2006). Finally, because Ye offered no other evidence that she
3 would likely be tortured in China, the agency did not err in
4 denying her application for CAT relief as that claim was based
5 on the same factual predicate as her asylum and withholding of
6 removal claims. Id. at 156-57.
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
9 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
10 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
11 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in
12 this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
13 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
14 34.1(b).
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
17
18
19
6