11-899
Yu v. Holder
BIA
Bain, IJ
A088 379 717
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 9th day of August, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
WEIGUANG YU,
Petitioner,
v. 11-899
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Ning Ye, Flushing, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Blair T. O’Connor,
Assistant Director; Briena L.
Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil
Division, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Petitioner Weiguang Yu, a native and citizen of the
People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a January 31,
2011 order of the BIA affirming the April 6, 2009 decision
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Weiguang Yu, No.
A088 379 717 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2011), aff’g No. A088 379 717
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 6, 2009). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey,
514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards
of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
(2d Cir. 2009).
The IJ and BIA did not err in concluding that, under 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), Yu, as the spouse of an individual
subjected to coercive abortions, was not per se eligible for
2
asylum. See also Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Department of
Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 309 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Instead, Yu was required to demonstrate persecution or a
well-founded fear of persecution based on his “other
resistance” to the family planning policy. See id. at 309-
10). Yu conceded at his merits hearing that he did not
engage in any such “other resistance,” and he is bound by
this concession. See Hoodho v. Holder, 558 F.3d 184, 191 (2d
Cir. 2009).
The agency also did not err in finding that Yu failed
to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution based
on his fear of forced sterilization and economic persecution
in the event that he has more than one child in the future.
Yu admitted at his hearing that he was not in violation of
the family planning policy, and “[i]n the absence of solid
support in the record” for such a fear, that fear is
“speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d
125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
546 F.3d 138, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, because
the agency did not err in finding that Yu failed to
demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear
of persecution, it reasonably denied his requests for asylum
and withholding of removal. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d
3
148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Yu does not challenge the agency’s
denial of CAT relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4