10-4937-ag
Dong v. Holder
BIA
Burr, IJ
A089 253 024
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 20th day of August, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.*
______________________________________
HONG BO DONG, AKA HONGBO DONG,
Petitioner,
10-4937-ag
v. NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gerald Karikari, New York, New York.
*
The Honorable Roger J. Miner, originally a member of
the panel, died on February 18, 2012. The two remaining
members of the panel, who are in agreement, have
determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir.
IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457 (2d
Cir. 1998).
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant
Director; Pegah Vakili, 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
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner, Hong Bo Dong, a native and citizen of
China, seeks review of a November 8, 2010, decision of the
BIA affirming the November 26, 2008, decision of Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) Sarah M. Burr denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hong Bo Dong, No.
A089 253 024 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2010), aff’g No. A089 253 024
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 26, 2008). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the IJ’s decision, except for her findings that Dong did not
subjectively feel persecuted and did not engage in “other
resistance” to a coercive population control policy, as the
BIA did not rely on those findings. See Xue Hong Yang v.
2
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 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 agency reasonably concluded that Dong did not
suffer past persecution because, although he was beaten
twice, including once while in detention, he suffered only
minor injuries that did not require medical attention and
his detention was brief. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (concluding that
persecution requires that the harm suffered be sufficiently
severe, rising above “mere harassment”); see also Jian Qiu
Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding
that petitioner failed to establish persecution where “he
suffered only minor bruising from an altercation with family
planning officials, which required no formal medical
attention and had no lasting physical effect”).
The agency also reasonably concluded that Dong failed
to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution or
a likelihood that he would be tortured under the family
planning policy, as he testified that he was not in
violation of the policy and that he and his wife could
lawfully have another child. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
3
421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that,
absent solid support in the record for the petitioner’s
assertion that he would be subjected to persecution in China
because of his desire to have more children, his fear was
“speculative at best”).
Thus, because Dong did not establish that he suffered
past persecution, that he has a well-founded fear of future
persecution, or that he is likely to be subjected to
torture, he did not establish his eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Ramsameachire v.
Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178, 183-85 (2d Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4