11-4296
Liang v. Sessions
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A099 429 458
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 9th day of August, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ZI YUN LIANG,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 11-4296
17 NAC
18
19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York,
25 New York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez
1
10242016-17
1 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel;
2 Kristofer R. McDonald, Trial
3 Attorney, Office of Immigration
4 Litigation, United States
5 Department of Justice, Washington,
6 D.C.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
11 DENIED.
12 Petitioner Zi Yun Liang, a native and citizen of China,
13 seeks review of a September 28, 2011, decision of the BIA
14 affirming the March 31, 2010, decision of an Immigration Judge
15 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
16 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). In re Zi Yun Liang, No. A099 429 458 (B.I.A. Sept.
18 28, 2011), aff’g No. A099 429 458 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar.
19 31, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history of this case.
21 The applicable standards of review are well established.
22 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,
23 546 F.3d 138, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2008). Liang applied for asylum,
24 withholding of removal, and CAT relief, asserting past
25 persecution on account of his resistance to China’s family
2
10242016-17
1 planning policy, and a fear of future persecution based on the
2 birth of his children in the United States purportedly in
3 violation of the family planning policy and on account of his
4 Christian faith.
5 Liang failed to establish that he suffered past
6 persecution. He testified that, in the course of an
7 altercation when he tried to visit his wife while she was
8 undergoing a compelled abortion, a family planning official hit
9 him once on his right cheek. Without more, this was
10 insufficient to meet his burden of establishing abuse that rose
11 to the level of persecution. As Liang did not allege that the
12 official inflicted pain or harm or caused injury that required
13 medical treatment, we find no error in the BIA’s conclusion that
14 this did not rise to the level of persecution. See Jian Qiu
15 Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Mei
16 Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (“We have
17 emphasized that persecution is ‘an extreme concept that does
18 not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
19 offensive.’” (quoting Ai Feng Yuan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
20 416 F.3d 192, 198 (2d Cir. 2005))). Relying on Beskovic v.
21 Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223, 226 (2d Cir. 2006), which held that
3
10242016-17
1 mistreatment that is insufficient to constitute persecution if
2 committed on a person at liberty can in some circumstances rise
3 to the level of persecution if committed on a person who is being
4 detained on a protected ground, Liang argues that this principle
5 should apply to him because he was hit while trying to visit
6 his wife who was being held for an abortion. While we make no
7 categorical ruling as to whether the Beskovic principle might
8 ever extend to circumstances where a petitioner was abused in
9 the context of the detention of a family member, we nonetheless
10 rule that, in the circumstances Liang described, the hit to his
11 cheek did not amount to persecution.
12 Because Liang did not demonstrate past persecution, he was
13 not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future
14 persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Liang did not
15 establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution under
16 the family planning policy because he failed to demonstrate that
17 Chinese nationals returning with U.S.-born children face
18 persecution in his home area of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous
19 Region (“XUAR”). See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d at 142-43, 160-61,
20 165-66.
4
10242016-17
1 Liang also did not establish a well-founded fear of
2 persecution based on his Christian faith. He did not submit
3 evidence that Chinese officials are aware or likely to become
4 aware of his religious practice. See Hongsheng Leng v.
5 Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). Although there was
6 evidence that repression of religious freedom had increased in
7 the XUAR, it discussed only the repression of Muslims and Uyghur
8 Christians in that region, and did not discuss the mistreatment
9 of Han Christians such as Liang. See Jian Hui Shao, 546 F.3d
10 at 160-61.
11 Because Liang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
12 future persecution, the agency did not err in denying asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales,
14 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
17 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
18 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
19 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
20 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
5
10242016-17
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
6
10242016-17